Sign in to follow this  
carlimac

These abuse numbers are really sad

Recommended Posts

14 hours ago, carlimac said:

https://apple.news/AXrV2WMtOS3CfEPtngxi6kQ

So it wasn’t just LDS leaders after all. We really don’t ever hear much about the abuse going on in your run-of-the-mill local scout troop. 

Growing up I was introduced (became aware) of homosexuality - first in the boy scouts and then again in the military.  There is a reason that boys are targeted in scouting.  For many boys it is their first experience away from home and family and there is an emotional vulnerability.  A side note here - this is also why "sleepovers" are where many youth are introduced to masturbation and homosexuality - that I believe are related.  As to the military - young men (and I assume women) are very lonely and vulnerable.  

It was not a surprise to me that the homosexual community has specifically targeted the boy scouts and the military.  It is both critical and fertile ground to establish relationships that will assist in convincing youth that they "fit" in.  Which, BTW, is the third critical psychological NEED of all humans. 

 

The Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some things worth observing:

Estimates of the number of boys who are sexually abused by an adult range from 1 in 6 to 1 in 20 to 1 in 53. Obviously, the definition of abuse makes a huge impact on those estimates, and I'm not interested in diving into those gory details.  But if we note that about 12,500 boys are reported in the BSA's database as having been abused, and then assume that it is under reported by a factor of two (that is, only half of the incidents were reported) and then compare that to the approximately 2 million youth currently in scout units, we would generate an estimate of 1.2% of youth experience abuse, or 1.2 in every 100.  

Keep in mind, that is enormously overestimated. Those 12,500 victims span 40 years of scouts, which probably accounts for closer to 8 - 10 million distinct youth.  So if you spread that out over 40 years of membership with 8 million youth, you're looking at something more like 3 in every 1000 scouts.  I'm not going to say that is an acceptable number of abuses (no abuse is acceptable), but it does put some perspective on the issue. Also, we don't yet know when these occurred.  The most damning thing we could possibly find in these files is that the incidence of abuse has been consistent over the past 40 years.  If that is the case, it means either the youth protection measures aren't working, or they aren't actually being followed. It will be really hard to tease out which of those is most true.

Another consideration is that the information that has come out so far doesn't describe how many of these victims were victimized by a family member. Far and away, family members are the most likely to engage in abuse. Boys who were abused by family members during scouting activities likely weren't at any more risk in scouting than they were at home. We also don't know how many of these abusers or abuse cases were reported to Scout leaders but occurred elsewhere.  Yes, the numbers look horrific, but without the actual files, we can't properly contextualize and understand the scope of the problem.

One last point, of the 7,800+ adults flagged as potential abusers, some portion of them were flagged on the background check and were not permitted to work in Scouting. We don't know how many, though.

The part of these reports that is most concerning, and most definitely should be dealt with harshly, is the finding that so many cases went unreported. Those who fail to report abuses should be dealt with harshly. There are definitely discussions to be had around this topic, and ways that scout units can do better.  Certainly, I expect there to be some restitution to be made.  Still, the reality is that a child is far more likely to be abused by a relative than they are a scout leader.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interestingly, I am typing this while sitting in a seminar about male sex abuse victims.  The 1-in-6 figure comes from an ACES (“Adverse Childhood Events”) survey with over ten thousand participants—one in six males and one in four females reported being sexually abused as children (including anything from unwelcome touching all the way up to classically-defined rape).  Forty percent of the males said that their perpetrators were female.  Only six percent of the females said that *their* perpetrators were female.  

I disagree with @MarginOfError in that I think there’s a good bit of horse sense underlying a prohibition on gay male leaders in the BSA.  But to be logically consistent, we’d also have to prohibit female leaders.  

Edited by Just_A_Guy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perspective is indeed important.  Along with MoE's comments, I'd like to point out that our church keeps a similar database.  This is the occasionally-discussed Annotation that can be affixed to a member's permanent record that follows them from ward to ward, anywhere in the world, and remains even if a member is excommunicated and then re-baptized years later.  Convictions of child molestation, serious felonies, I forget the things that make it to a permanent annotation.   I'm told an annotation can only be removed by a member of the first presidency.   The annotation exists to help any leader, wherever these folks show up, be aware of this person's past.  So they know who NOT to get involved in Scouting, or call to the finance clerk's office, or keep an eye on, or whatever.   Keep in mind the church is to help sinners repent, as well as protect the flock from predators.  We are human, and humans solutions to such a problem are imperfect.

How many members of this church, would you guess carry such an annotation?  I'm guessing the annotation started sometime in the '90's, but I'm not sure.  

So, there are analogous points and disanalogous points between the church's annotation and the scout's Perversion Files.  And there are lots of things we don't know. 

- The bar for a church annotation is high - a conviction or confession, vetted by stake and area authorities.  Reading the article, it seems like an accusation was all it took to get you added to the BSOA file.  You get a church annotation, you did something and need to be watched.  You get on the BSOA file, maybe you just made someone mad and they retaliated by making a false report?

- What steps did the BSOA take, when someone was added to the perversion file?  Were these people all kicked out of the org/denied entry?  The article is unclear.

I don't have any major point to make, and I'm certainly not trying to diffuse or ignore or explain away abuse.  It's horrible, it needs to be stopped/prevented/tracked wherever it's found.  But yes, perspective is important.  

[edit - actually, I do have a major point to make.  This stuff does indeed exist everywhere.  We should all know that and be on the lookout for it.]

Edited by NeuroTypical

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Interestingly, I am typing this while sitting in a seminar about male sex abuse victims.  The 1-in-6 figure comes from an ACES (“Adverse Childhood Events”) survey with over ten thousand participants—one in six males and one in four females reported being sexually abused as children (including anything from unwelcome touching all the way up to classically-defined rape).  Forty percent of the males said that their perpetrators were female.  Only six percent of the females said that *their* perpetrators were female.  

I disagree with @MarginOfError in that I think there’s a good bit of horse sense underlying a prohibition on gay male leaders in the BSA.  But to be logically consistent, we’d also have to prohibit female leaders.  

I would make the case that whether or not a leader is permitted to serve in Scouting should depend on three things. 1) willingness, 2) ability to pass the background check, and 3) discipline to follow the rules (outlined in both Youth Protection, training resources, and the Guide to Safe Scouting).  If any one of those three is ever found to be lacking, participation should be terminated.

I believe this strongly enough that I'm currently advocating for the release of at least one of our youth leaders for failure to comply with youth protection guidelines. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, MarginOfError said:

I would make the case that whether or not a leader is permitted to serve in Scouting should depend on three things. 1) willingness, 2) ability to pass the background check, and 3) discipline to follow the rules (outlined in both Youth Protection, training resources, and the Guide to Safe Scouting).  If any one of those three is ever found to be lacking, participation should be terminated.

I agree with these three, but would add a fourth: 4) ability to serve as a good role model of manhood in all important senses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, MarginOfError said:

 

Another consideration is that the information that has come out so far doesn't describe how many of these victims were victimized by a family member. Far and away, family members are the most likely to engage in abuse. Boys who were abused by family members during scouting activities likely weren't at any more risk in scouting than they were at home. We also don't know how many of these abusers or abuse cases were reported to Scout leaders but occurred elsewhere.  Yes, the numbers look horrific, but without the actual files, we can't properly contextualize and understand the scope of the problem.

 

The part of these reports that is most concerning, and most definitely should be dealt with harshly, is the finding that so many cases went unreported. Those who fail to report abuses should be dealt with harshly. There are definitely discussions to be had around this topic, and ways that scout units can do better.  Certainly, I expect there to be some restitution to be made.  Still, the reality is that a child is far more likely to be abused by a relative than they are a scout leader.

( See bolded )I believe this for girls but it seems off for boys.  I imagine more fathers abusing their daughters than their sons. That would make for a lot of homosexual fathers who are also pedophiles. 

Edited by carlimac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, carlimac said:

( See bolded )I believe this for girls but it seems off for boys.  I imagine more fathers abusing their daughters than their sons. That would make for a lot of homosexual fathers who are also pedophiles. 

I doubt that any more than a tiny minority of fathers sexually abuse their daughters. Uncles, cousins, or even brothers seem more likely to be the abusers than fathers. I just have to believe that the overwhelming majority of fathers view their baby daughters as objects of protection and not as objects of sexual desire. The issue is so highly politicized, with feminists trying to push fathers out of the picture altogether and feminist-poisoned society only too eager to accept dubious claims, that I don't even know where to get reliable statistics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, carlimac said:

( See bolded )I believe this for girls but it seems off for boys.  I imagine more fathers abusing their daughters than their sons. That would make for a lot of homosexual fathers who are also pedophiles. 

It isn't just the fathers.  It is uncles, cousins, brothers, grandfathers, boyfriends of moms, etc.

And don't confuse homosexuality and pedophilia.  The vast majority of men who abuse boys identify as heterosexual. They have wives and girlfriends and engage in normal heterosexual activity. Pedophilia is a side gig. And it may not be the gender of the victim that arouses them, but the ability to manipulate and control.  (Brief primer on motivations of pedophiles)

EDIT: Apologies to Vort for duplicating much of what he said.  I was in the middle of writing when someone came in to ask me a few questions.

Edited by MarginOfError

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, MarginOfError said:

Estimates of the number of boys who are sexually abused by an adult range from 1 in 6 to 1 in 20 to 1 in 53.

Quote

only about a third of cases are reported.

 -- First Link

How do they even estimate what is NOT reported?  What is that statistical procedure?  And do those numbers include the estimated or only the reported?

Quote

Children who had an experience of rape or attempted rape in their adolescent years were 13.7 times more likely to experience rape or attempted rape in their first year of college

 -- Second Link

Why is that?  Is there a common characteristic that predators look for?  How can we train children (and even adults) to NOT have that characteristic?  How can we protect people who have that characteristic?

2 hours ago, MarginOfError said:

But if we note that about 12,500 boys are reported in the BSA's database as having been abused, and then assume that it is under reported by a factor of two (that is, only half of the incidents were reported) and then compare that to the approximately 2 million youth currently in scout units, we would generate an estimate of 1.2% of youth experience abuse, or 1.2 in every 100.  

According to the links the factor of 2 would actually under-report.

2 hours ago, MarginOfError said:

The part of these reports that is most concerning, and most definitely should be dealt with harshly, is the finding that so many cases went unreported. Those who fail to report abuses should be dealt with harshly. There are definitely discussions to be had around this topic, and ways that scout units can do better.  Certainly, I expect there to be some restitution to be made.  Still, the reality is that a child is far more likely to be abused by a relative than they are a scout leader.

I find some interesting possibly correlating information that is not clearly stated as correlating.

Quote

80% of perpetrators were a parent

6% were other relatives

5% were "other" (from siblings to strangers)

4% were unmarried partners of a parent

 -- Third Link

Quote

Children who do not live with both parents as well as children living in homes marked by parental discord, divorce, or domestic violence, have a higher risk of being sexually abused

 -- Second Link

Notice the 4% "unmarried partners of a parent".

I have to wonder if the "80%...parent" includes step-parents.  Just going off of a single known data point (me) I know how I think of my daughters.  And along with @Vort, I absolutely feel a spirit of protection for them above any other feeling.  I can't really imagine that 80% of the parental abuse comes from the actual biological father (and in most cases adoptive fathers as well).  And to think it would also include homosexual abuse from a biological father is just unthinkable (to me).

It would seem more likely that the 80% statistic would include a large number of step-parents.  This would be bolstered by the quote from the Second Link.

And there is also the question of what constitutes abuse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, MarginOfError said:

And don't confuse homosexuality and pedophilia.  The vast majority of men who abuse boys identify as heterosexual. They have wives and girlfriends and engage in normal heterosexual activity. Pedophilia is a side gig. And it may not be the gender of the victim that arouses them, but the ability to manipulate and control.  (Brief primer on motivations of pedophiles)

I keep hearing this.  But it doesn't seem to make sense to me.

I understand the distinction being made about motivation etc. in the Wiki article you linked to.  By my reading, it simply means "They aren't homosexual because we're choosing to define a pedophile or homosexual in such a manner that they don't necessarily overlap."

This does not mean that it is inaccurate or wrong.  I'm saying that there are other definitions that are perfectly reasonable and clinically accurate that would necessitate most of them being categorized in such a manner as to show tremendous overlap.  Basically, with the right definitions, you can make any statement about this an be accurate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Mores said:

How do they even estimate what is NOT reported?  What is that statistical procedure?  And do those numbers include the estimated or only the reported?

You do surveys outside of law enforcement; essentially letting people self-identify their assault to a researcher without pressing charges.

Quote

Why is that?  Is there a common characteristic that predators look for?  How can we train children (and even adults) to NOT have that characteristic?  How can we protect people who have that characteristic?

Abuse victims may be selected for their perceived pliability.  Others are traumatized to the point that they don't recognize healthy boundaries, or have such low self esteem that they allow themselves to be manipulated into high risk situations.  But,  ultimately, if you are abused by a trusted adult, someone you've been told countless times "loves" you, you grow up with a warped sense of love and can fall into a pattern of recognizing abusive behavior as "love."  The human brain is both resilient and fragile.

Quote

According to the links the factor of 2 would actually under-report.

You are correct.  Still, you'd have to multiply those 12,500 more than twenty times before you reached the 1 in 53 level.

Quote

 

I have to wonder if the "80%...parent" includes step-parents.  Just going off of a single known data point (me) I know how I think of my daughters.  And along with @Vort, I absolutely feel a spirit of protection for them above any other feeling.  I can't really imagine that 80% of the parental abuse comes from the actual biological father (and in most cases adoptive fathers as well).  And to think it would also include homosexual abuse from a biological father is just unthinkable (to me).

It would seem more likely that the 80% statistic would include a large number of step-parents.  This would be bolstered by the quote from the Second Link.

 

This surprises me.  I haven't found a good break down of the relationship of abusers.  If anyone finds one, please let me know.  I'd be interested to study that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Mores said:

I keep hearing this.  But it doesn't seem to make sense to me.

I understand the distinction being made about motivation etc. in the Wiki article you linked to.  By my reading, it simply means "They aren't homosexual because we're choosing to define a pedophile or homosexual in such a manner that they don't necessarily overlap."

This does not mean that it is inaccurate or wrong.  I'm saying that there are other definitions that are perfectly reasonable and clinically accurate that would necessitate most of them being categorized in such a manner as to show tremendous overlap.  Basically, with the right definitions, you can make any statement about this an be accurate.

For the situational abuser, it is probably best described as a heterosexual (typically) with a pedo-fetish (or a power-fetish, or some cross between them)

For the preferential abuser, it could be described on a plane of heterosexuality, homosexuality, and pedosexuality.  This assumes, of course, that you accept the premise of that sexuality is more of a continuum than a binary state, but that's what the idea is getting at.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, MarginOfError said:

You do surveys outside of law enforcement; essentially letting people self-identify their assault to a researcher without pressing charges.

Interesting.  Is there any way to really have a handle on how accurate this methodology really is?

36 minutes ago, MarginOfError said:

Abuse victims may be selected for their perceived pliability.  Others are traumatized to the point that they don't recognize healthy boundaries, or have such low self esteem that they allow themselves to be manipulated into high risk situations.  But,  ultimately, if you are abused by a trusted adult, someone you've been told countless times "loves" you, you grow up with a warped sense of love and can fall into a pattern of recognizing abusive behavior as "love."  The human brain is both resilient and fragile.

That is really sad.

36 minutes ago, MarginOfError said:

You are correct.  Still, you'd have to multiply those 12,500 more than twenty times before you reached the 1 in 53 level.

Good point.

36 minutes ago, MarginOfError said:

This surprises me.  I haven't found a good break down of the relationship of abusers.  If anyone finds one, please let me know.  I'd be interested to study that.

So would I.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, MarginOfError said:

For the situational abuser, it is probably best described as a heterosexual (typically) with a pedo-fetish (or a power-fetish, or some cross between them)

For the preferential abuser, it could be described on a plane of heterosexuality, homosexuality, and pedosexuality.  This assumes, of course, that you accept the premise of that sexuality is more of a continuum than a binary state, but that's what the idea is getting at.

Yes, I read as much in the article.  But it still sounds like the definition is being used to create a narrative (true or false, I'm not addressing at this point).  And by that observation, it could be just as easy to be statistically accurate using different perfectly reasonable definitions that would generate a completely different narrative (true or false, I'm not addressing at this point).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Mores said:

Yes, I read as much in the article.  But it still sounds like the definition is being used to create a narrative (true or false, I'm not addressing at this point).  And by that observation, it could be just as easy to be statistically accurate using different perfectly reasonable definitions that would generate a completely different narrative (true or false, I'm not addressing at this point).

I would make the case the the narrative already existed.  Bearing in mind that this is, out of necessity, observational data. The best we can do is cut and slice the data to identify patterns/clusters of features that group well. And it's a very common trait that abusers of boys are have heterosexual adult relationships. I believe (in this sense I believe I've read this, but I couldn't tell you where, so take it with a grain of salt) that they commonly even reject the label of homosexual. 

From this point, we can approach it in two different ways.  We can approach it externally from the abuser (experimentally declaring the abuser the subject of interest) and say, "well, you engaged in sexual activity with a male. Therefore you are homosexual.*"  Or we can approach it internally to the abuser and how they describe themselves personally.  I would argue the internal approach has better promise for understanding the motivations, alluding to potential causes, and identifying effective safeguards.

So no, I don't think it's a matter of creating the narrative as much as it is about articulating the narrative that's already there.

 

* This can also be problematic to non-abusing homosexual men as it associates them with a group of men who don't share similar characteristics.  Is that snow-flaky?  Maybe.  But I imagine the percentage of homosexual men who abuse boys is pretty similar to the percentage of heterosexual men who abuse boys. So I'm hesitant to use a narrative viewpoint that disproportionately identifies the risk to homosexual men.

Edited by MarginOfError

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, MarginOfError said:

Or we can approach it internally to the abuser and how they describe themselves personally.  I would argue the internal approach has better promise for understanding the motivations, alluding to potential causes, and identifying effective safeguards.

100% of serial murderers and rapists are fundamentally good people who are just misunderstood by a corrupt, uncaring system.

I think the "internal approach" has important and valid uses, but let's not let the inmates run the asylum. Someone who is sexually attracted to members of his/her own sex is homosexual by definition, regardless of what s/he thinks about himself/herself internally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, MarginOfError said:

I don't think it's a matter of creating the narrative as much as it is about articulating the narrative that's already there.

From this point, we can approach it in two different ways...

I'm approaching it from the perspective of Gore Vidal who said,"There are really no homosexual people, only homosexual acts".  I'm hoping I got that right.  I'm quoting from memory a long time ago.  He refused to "come out" because he didn't want "labels" to define him.  But anyone who knew him recognized that he was gay.  He may have had minor bisexual tendencies.  But he was clearly gay.  Yet he refused to self-identify for a variety of reasons.

Given the Church's position on homosexual acts vis-a-vis SSA, I'm using his definition of homosexuality when it comes to crime and punishment.  If you have a tendency to want to do a homosexual act, then you are a homosexual.  This is a perfectly reasonable and logical definition.  Sure, you can use self-identification.  And that is one method that is accepted in many areas of study.  But it seems a very convenient method for a particular agenda.  And it is fraught with pitfalls in accuracy.  Are these men simply in denial?  How many times have we heard that from gay men who talk about supposedly straight men who are simply lying to themselves trying to live heterosexual lives?

You can't have it both ways.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Vort said:

I agree with these three, but would add a fourth: 4) ability to serve as a good role model of manhood in all important senses.

That was an appropriate qualification back before the BSA was in the business of pimping its values out to the highest bidder.  The BSA has abdicated its former role of advancing an ideal as to what “manhood” or “goodness” are, let alone inculcating those ideals into youth.  That’s why we’re leaving.

Edited by Just_A_Guy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, MarginOfError said:

I would make the case the the narrative already existed.  Bearing in mind that this is, out of necessity, observational data. The best we can do is cut and slice the data to identify patterns/clusters of features that group well. And it's a very common trait that abusers of boys are have heterosexual adult relationships. I believe (in this sense I believe I've read this, but I couldn't tell you where, so take it with a grain of salt) that they commonly even reject the label of homosexual. 

From this point, we can approach it in two different ways.  We can approach it externally from the abuser (experimentally declaring the abuser the subject of interest) and say, "well, you engaged in sexual activity with a male. Therefore you are homosexual.*"  Or we can approach it internally to the abuser and how they describe themselves personally.  I would argue the internal approach has better promise for understanding the motivations, alluding to potential causes, and identifying effective safeguards.

So no, I don't think it's a matter of creating the narrative as much as it is about articulating the narrative that's already there.

 

* This can also be problematic to non-abusing homosexual men as it associates them with a group of men who don't share similar characteristics.  Is that snow-flaky?  Maybe.  But I imagine the percentage of homosexual men who abuse boys is pretty similar to the percentage of heterosexual men who abuse boys. So I'm hesitant to use a narrative viewpoint that disproportionately identifies the risk to homosexual men.

There’s good horse sense here; but we also have to allow for social constraints.  Once upon a time, many gay people wound up in heterosexual marriages because there was no socially acceptable outlet for their preferred sexual proclivities.  

Complicating the matter (and @MarginOfError probably has better knowledge of this than I do) is that just as modern social science is moving beyond binary gender identity schemes, so they seem to be moving beyond binary sexual orientation paradigms.  Another decade or two, and I suspect that many Right Thinking clinicians will be unconvinced that there’s even such a thing as “heterosexuality”.  

Edited by Just_A_Guy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this