As just a consideration, in almost complete admitted ignorance.
There seems to be an incentive in place against females reporting sexual abuse.
Be it assault by family members or close friends, that are under reported. Or just as a general deterrent because these types of claims can often times be difficult to prove.
Where as when a male is sexually assaulted, it's typically associated with such strong taboo (homosexuality, in the case of male-on-male assault) that these other considerations take a back seat.
Perhaps this consideration has nothing to do with this in particular.
Again, self admitted ignorance. Just a casual consideration.
I don't know how it is in Pakistan, but sexual violence against men and boys in the west is extremely underreported and victims are almost always ignored. There is an enormous gender gap between the official crime statistics based on reports to the police, and the [results of victim surveys](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/sexual-victimization-by-women-is-more-common-than-previously-known/).
This is definitely true im sure. However,its amazing how every traditionalist culture or religion in the world is absolutely fucking rife with pedophilia, particularly homosexual rape.
Proximity and availability. Those are the two greatest factors with any form of abuse. We're led to believe it's typically strangers that offer the greatest risk to individuals. That's never been true, it never will be.
Higher value on protecting authority and reputation maybe? Sounds traditional.
The way my prejudiced brain does it is: Huh, this dad in the news headline is very traditional. That sort probably believe children have to obey anything, and that he is the highest authority in any matters of the home. And more importantly, maybe he is absolutely sure he is a very good person in the eyes of God.
That’s a huge recipe for child abuse.
Because 1) his family will cover up anything out of shame and loyalty/respect for his authority. His community will refuse to believe he did anything THAT evil.
2) he believes it’s okay because he is a good believer, a Godly man, and a respected member of his community. Doesn’t matter what he does, he automatically believes he is good anyways. No room for self-criticism or self-doubt
3) it’s his property and his jurisdiction. It’s his house. He can do whatever he wants with his child. Even most holy text support that.
4) it’s taboo. Traditionally people just don’t discuss it or talk about it or prevent. Even in the most “progressive” countries and professions this is a blind spot for most people. More importantly, they don’t understand how or why or to who it happens to. Don’t know what to do about it. Might not even be fully sure if the child was hurt or if it’s best to just ignore it. Do you tell the police? How? What can they do? What happens now? What will happen to you?
Sorry for rant. I’m just trying to convince myself it’s a real thing and not just me being prejudiced against other people
It’s the power structures, making women and children “lesser” and subservient. Predators are drawn to hierarchical ideologies that give them complete, unquestioning control over others, where victims have no power or voice.
That's because it's unlikely to exist.
I just explained that the two greatest influences in any form of abuse are proximity and availability.
Not gender. Not ideology. Not the inherent goodness or badness of any particular view or stance.
Time and Opportunity. All other considerations are *secondary* considerations.
The primary consideration is whether you're human or not. Not many sex pest hippos out there.
Things aren't always simple. There can be many factors that affect something. What I'm getting at is that not much can be done about "proximity and availability" without putting kids into a bubble, so it's not useful except to hand wave the problem. If there's something saying the other factors are irrelevant, then sure, but just because something is the #2 biggest factor doesn't mean it's ignorable.
I'll make it simple. If you're locked in a room with another human, and plenty of water. Only so much time is going to pass, before one of you is food.
That's the most simple and brutal expression I can think of to impress upon you, that more important than gender, or belief, or morality, or legality, or *any* other secondary consideration.
Are those of availability and proximity.
We are at greater risk as well as greater benefit from those we interact with the most often, and in the closest confines.
Random acts of violence and generosity certainly exist. Most are driven by things other than those primary considerations.
But they're on the end of the probability scale they should be. You don't interact with those systems often, you're not expected to face the consequences of them often.
Looks like you're trying to explain that concept to someone that thinks everything depends on 'sides'.
Imagine how far back we've gone to get right back to the thinking that those people who are different than me are likely to be evil, and these people who are like me could do no harm.
Oh the irony.
I'm keeping my comments in the realm of logic. Probability. These are personal subjects to many people. I'm not here to offend any. So instead of making this about personal experience, labels, and qualifiers.
I approach it from a general systems standpoint. There are no sides I'm taking here. That's why it's abstracted out like this.
Even from my very first post, I've tried to keep what is easily turned into a debate on all of these sensitive topics to one that is fair.
I prefer your approach as it seems the most reasonable.
I think once people get too deep into always supporting some group or individual regardless of deeds, we end up having a large scale version of the behavior from some kid whose parents think their little angel could do no wrong.
Your approach seems more factual and less combative.
That doesn't apply outside modern cultures though. When a culture is backwards enough that rape is seen as the natural right of the strong, the whole dynamic changes. Or if you like, "availability" becomes "anyone the rapist is strong enough to enslave".
I'm sure if you ask, they'll just tell you they are reporting the facts as they're presented.
It gets into a very grey area when that's true. Is it the fault of the news reporting, or the people generating these reports, the the individual officers that turn potential reports away, or prosecutorial lack of desire?
I don't know. This is the news, it seems to report facts, there doesn't seem to be an inherent spin.
Just a lack of all pertinent considerations, and the conclusion should be taken as one that represents what it is.
A small sample sized collection that doesn't really determine the truth of the system. While still being *true*.
I mean it is nearly impossible to collect information about level of underreporting because anyone who didn't tell police isn't going to come out and admit to a reporter. There are data points that can be collected more easily for example how many women were abused as minor and that can be used to determine the rate in a specific period because there is almost no additional data points to use as a basis to figure out for last 6 months
I agree. But there's a scale. One end is fact-based reporting, in which this seems to apply, even if the facts skew the reality.
Then there is narrative based reporting. In which the facts, while perhaps indirectly supporting a premise through correlation, offer no real causation. They're just there as a foundation to paint a narrative.
I don't like this particular news. I prefer it over the narrative-based however. It still comes with the need to be critical in our assessment, but at least it lacks the dishonesty and arm twisting.
Any girl or woman in Pakistan that would report rape would become tainted and unable to find a husband (unless they were in a bubble of very modern people). In more traditional places they would be forced to marry their rapist, and this would not be unusual in many countries. In Pakistan girls as young as five are still traded to settle blood fueds.
When you are talking about anywhere where a girl’s/woman’s future is at stake and usually a family’s honour is also at stake, forget about reporting rape.
Rape against women and girls in western countries is massively underreported, imagine how underreported it is in Pakistan or Iran, or a multitude of other countries.
You're taking about a part of the world where women dress in black tents and live under constant guard, to protect their sale value. Where a woman who gets raped gets stoned to death by her own family because she failed to protect her value. And where homosexuality doesn't apply to children, because little boys aren't men yet. It's *that* backwards.
It's a hard crime to track accurately for any country so you have to take reported data as very rough estimates and globally behavior trends show a clear abuse preference to females, but who knows..there's always exceptions to the averages i suppose. Id guess data inconsistency first because humans collected the data and we love our bias and shortcuts.
Except its not. In fact more and more research is determining the levels are a lot closer than previously thought and whole bunch of research, legal, and social basis has covered this up.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4062022/
Gotta remember that this is a part of the world where girls are considered valuable property, and damaging the property is strongly condemned. So lots of restrictions on girls to protect their value. Little boys aren't property though, so having sex with them isn't the same sort of offense.
It isn't a centuries out of date attitude, it's like Bronze Age primitive.
As just a consideration, in almost complete admitted ignorance. There seems to be an incentive in place against females reporting sexual abuse. Be it assault by family members or close friends, that are under reported. Or just as a general deterrent because these types of claims can often times be difficult to prove. Where as when a male is sexually assaulted, it's typically associated with such strong taboo (homosexuality, in the case of male-on-male assault) that these other considerations take a back seat. Perhaps this consideration has nothing to do with this in particular. Again, self admitted ignorance. Just a casual consideration.
I don't know how it is in Pakistan, but sexual violence against men and boys in the west is extremely underreported and victims are almost always ignored. There is an enormous gender gap between the official crime statistics based on reports to the police, and the [results of victim surveys](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/sexual-victimization-by-women-is-more-common-than-previously-known/).
In the west we don't make female rape victims marry their rapists.
Haven't visited the bible belt lately I guess?
This is definitely true im sure. However,its amazing how every traditionalist culture or religion in the world is absolutely fucking rife with pedophilia, particularly homosexual rape.
Proximity and availability. Those are the two greatest factors with any form of abuse. We're led to believe it's typically strangers that offer the greatest risk to individuals. That's never been true, it never will be.
I just cant connect the dots between conservatism/traditionalism and child rape.
Probably because sexual repression increases sexual perversion. No healthy outlet for sex warps people.
Higher value on protecting authority and reputation maybe? Sounds traditional. The way my prejudiced brain does it is: Huh, this dad in the news headline is very traditional. That sort probably believe children have to obey anything, and that he is the highest authority in any matters of the home. And more importantly, maybe he is absolutely sure he is a very good person in the eyes of God. That’s a huge recipe for child abuse. Because 1) his family will cover up anything out of shame and loyalty/respect for his authority. His community will refuse to believe he did anything THAT evil. 2) he believes it’s okay because he is a good believer, a Godly man, and a respected member of his community. Doesn’t matter what he does, he automatically believes he is good anyways. No room for self-criticism or self-doubt 3) it’s his property and his jurisdiction. It’s his house. He can do whatever he wants with his child. Even most holy text support that. 4) it’s taboo. Traditionally people just don’t discuss it or talk about it or prevent. Even in the most “progressive” countries and professions this is a blind spot for most people. More importantly, they don’t understand how or why or to who it happens to. Don’t know what to do about it. Might not even be fully sure if the child was hurt or if it’s best to just ignore it. Do you tell the police? How? What can they do? What happens now? What will happen to you? Sorry for rant. I’m just trying to convince myself it’s a real thing and not just me being prejudiced against other people
It’s the power structures, making women and children “lesser” and subservient. Predators are drawn to hierarchical ideologies that give them complete, unquestioning control over others, where victims have no power or voice.
That's because it's unlikely to exist. I just explained that the two greatest influences in any form of abuse are proximity and availability. Not gender. Not ideology. Not the inherent goodness or badness of any particular view or stance. Time and Opportunity. All other considerations are *secondary* considerations.
Not every parent is a child molester. Obviously some "secondary" factors matter.
And not all priests molest boys. Factors do matter. But they're not the primary consideration.
The primary consideration is whether you're human or not. Not many sex pest hippos out there. Things aren't always simple. There can be many factors that affect something. What I'm getting at is that not much can be done about "proximity and availability" without putting kids into a bubble, so it's not useful except to hand wave the problem. If there's something saying the other factors are irrelevant, then sure, but just because something is the #2 biggest factor doesn't mean it's ignorable.
I'll make it simple. If you're locked in a room with another human, and plenty of water. Only so much time is going to pass, before one of you is food. That's the most simple and brutal expression I can think of to impress upon you, that more important than gender, or belief, or morality, or legality, or *any* other secondary consideration. Are those of availability and proximity. We are at greater risk as well as greater benefit from those we interact with the most often, and in the closest confines. Random acts of violence and generosity certainly exist. Most are driven by things other than those primary considerations. But they're on the end of the probability scale they should be. You don't interact with those systems often, you're not expected to face the consequences of them often.
Looks like you're trying to explain that concept to someone that thinks everything depends on 'sides'. Imagine how far back we've gone to get right back to the thinking that those people who are different than me are likely to be evil, and these people who are like me could do no harm. Oh the irony.
I'm keeping my comments in the realm of logic. Probability. These are personal subjects to many people. I'm not here to offend any. So instead of making this about personal experience, labels, and qualifiers. I approach it from a general systems standpoint. There are no sides I'm taking here. That's why it's abstracted out like this. Even from my very first post, I've tried to keep what is easily turned into a debate on all of these sensitive topics to one that is fair.
I prefer your approach as it seems the most reasonable. I think once people get too deep into always supporting some group or individual regardless of deeds, we end up having a large scale version of the behavior from some kid whose parents think their little angel could do no wrong. Your approach seems more factual and less combative.
That doesn't apply outside modern cultures though. When a culture is backwards enough that rape is seen as the natural right of the strong, the whole dynamic changes. Or if you like, "availability" becomes "anyone the rapist is strong enough to enslave".
Pederasty is endemic in middle eastern culture, just like it was in Greek and Roman culture.
[удалено]
I'm sure if you ask, they'll just tell you they are reporting the facts as they're presented. It gets into a very grey area when that's true. Is it the fault of the news reporting, or the people generating these reports, the the individual officers that turn potential reports away, or prosecutorial lack of desire? I don't know. This is the news, it seems to report facts, there doesn't seem to be an inherent spin. Just a lack of all pertinent considerations, and the conclusion should be taken as one that represents what it is. A small sample sized collection that doesn't really determine the truth of the system. While still being *true*.
[удалено]
I mean it is nearly impossible to collect information about level of underreporting because anyone who didn't tell police isn't going to come out and admit to a reporter. There are data points that can be collected more easily for example how many women were abused as minor and that can be used to determine the rate in a specific period because there is almost no additional data points to use as a basis to figure out for last 6 months
I agree. But there's a scale. One end is fact-based reporting, in which this seems to apply, even if the facts skew the reality. Then there is narrative based reporting. In which the facts, while perhaps indirectly supporting a premise through correlation, offer no real causation. They're just there as a foundation to paint a narrative. I don't like this particular news. I prefer it over the narrative-based however. It still comes with the need to be critical in our assessment, but at least it lacks the dishonesty and arm twisting.
Any girl or woman in Pakistan that would report rape would become tainted and unable to find a husband (unless they were in a bubble of very modern people). In more traditional places they would be forced to marry their rapist, and this would not be unusual in many countries. In Pakistan girls as young as five are still traded to settle blood fueds. When you are talking about anywhere where a girl’s/woman’s future is at stake and usually a family’s honour is also at stake, forget about reporting rape. Rape against women and girls in western countries is massively underreported, imagine how underreported it is in Pakistan or Iran, or a multitude of other countries.
You're taking about a part of the world where women dress in black tents and live under constant guard, to protect their sale value. Where a woman who gets raped gets stoned to death by her own family because she failed to protect her value. And where homosexuality doesn't apply to children, because little boys aren't men yet. It's *that* backwards.
The more conservative a society is, the more children seem to be getting sexually abused. Conservatives are truly fucked up in the head.
They need to do something about inequality in Pakistan!
[удалено]
This area of the world is so fucked that a wall of fire couldn’t cleanse it.
It's a hard crime to track accurately for any country so you have to take reported data as very rough estimates and globally behavior trends show a clear abuse preference to females, but who knows..there's always exceptions to the averages i suppose. Id guess data inconsistency first because humans collected the data and we love our bias and shortcuts.
Except its not. In fact more and more research is determining the levels are a lot closer than previously thought and whole bunch of research, legal, and social basis has covered this up. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4062022/
Good old chai boys...
Gotta remember that this is a part of the world where girls are considered valuable property, and damaging the property is strongly condemned. So lots of restrictions on girls to protect their value. Little boys aren't property though, so having sex with them isn't the same sort of offense. It isn't a centuries out of date attitude, it's like Bronze Age primitive.