The impact of sexual abuse on female development: a longitudinal study • Hacker News Board

Re: The impact of sexual abuse on female development: a longitudinal study

#101

Post by greenonions » Thu, Jan 13, 2022, 5:58 PM UTC

PaulHoule wrote: post #74

There are many men who suffer through sexless marriages for 20, 30 years or more because their partner was victimized as a child. (I'd assume that some women also have similar problems because their man was abused.) Such a man can work really hard to please and love a woman and try to create feelings of safety. They might blame themselves, thinking that it's because of that argument they had this morning, or yesterda…

It seems rather insensitive to ruminate on future men's loss of sex because of sexual abuse.

Perhaps the men in these sexless relationships should analyze if they are capable of sustaining this relationship, considering sex is so important to them and they are not receiving it.

This entire comment does not consider the women's suffering and loss in any capacity due to abuse. Maybe it is the case that a similar complete lack of consideration is present in the perpetrators of abuse.

Re: The impact of sexual abuse on female development: a longitudinal study

#102

Post by fullstop » Thu, Jan 13, 2022, 5:59 PM UTC

throwaway0a5e wrote: post #88

fullstop wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My wife was summoned for jury duty, and the case had to do with sexual abuse. At jury selection time they ask if a prospective juror would have difficulty being impartial because of the nature of the case. If you were uncomfortable discussing the matter, you could ask to be taken aside to discuss without the others in the room hearing it. Out of a few dozen people, seven women left the room to explain why they could…

edit: deleted, not worth trying to add any discussion to a topic like this.

> Seems like a hell of a leap. What are the odds someone is being abused concurrent with jury duty vs any other time in their life up until that point?

Not really. In abusive relationships, the abuser often controls every aspect of the abused person's life and there are not opportunities to seek help without the abuser knowing. It's why there are sometimes signs in the bathrooms of women's health clinics informing the patient to initial their sample cup in red marker if they are being abused or have something that they wish to discuss in private. This may well have been one of her only chances to speak with someone without an abuser knowing.

She was the only one called back when the selection was complete. I've been called for jury duty several times and this has never happened while I was there.

Re: The impact of sexual abuse on female development: a longitudinal study

#103

Post by vasco » Thu, Jan 13, 2022, 5:59 PM UTC

sacred_numbers wrote: post #84

pawelmurias wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why should locking up child abusers be controversial?

That was my thought at first as well, but thinking about it more, if abusers find out that genetic testing is routinely happening they will just not allow the victim to receive medical treatment at all, which would be worse for the victim than the status quo. Worst case scenario they would get rid of the evidence completely, either by forced back-alley abortion or murder.

This seems like a second order effect that is surely much lower than fixing the first order effect of protecting underage pregnant women and arresting their abusers. Surely some abusers would prevent women from getting help, but we shouldn't deny help to those that we can, that just seems utterly crazy to me.

Re: The impact of sexual abuse on female development: a longitudinal study

#104

Post by jeffbee » Thu, Jan 13, 2022, 6:00 PM UTC

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #97

fullstop wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My wife was summoned for jury duty, and the case had to do with sexual abuse. At jury selection time they ask if a prospective juror would have difficulty being impartial because of the nature of the case. If you were uncomfortable discussing the matter, you could ask to be taken aside to discuss without the others in the room hearing it. Out of a few dozen people, seven women left the room to explain why they could…

If we are removing all jurors who have been abused because they are 'not impartial', aren't we left with a collection of people who are totally ignorant? The jury has to judge how a reasonable person would act in a certain situation, who is lying and who is telling the truth. Off one end, we have victim blamind and rapists walking free, off another end, uk had "serial liar" who invented false rape allegations and sen…

The whole jury system in founded on ignorance. Both sides don't want anyone who was a cop, knows any cops, has studied the law, or was ever arrested. Often, people with any kind of higher education will be dismissed. Last time I went to jury duty they asked anyone who had ever been party to any legal matter to leave. It's pretty wild.

Re: The impact of sexual abuse on female development: a longitudinal study

#105

Post by woodruffw » Thu, Jan 13, 2022, 6:00 PM UTC

deanCommie wrote: post #93

sandworm101 wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they came back in tears and were removed from the jury, then the system worked. A clearly impartial potential juror was removed and a past victim was saved from a horrible experience of sitting through such testimony. But what about those who have been abused but aren't in tears? This came up very recently. One of the Ghislaine Maxwell jurors discussed his history of being abused with other jurors. The question be…

I find the very premise of trying to find an "impartial" jury very strange. It makes sense at first pass, but falls apart soon after. Are these not to be a jury of my "peers". Are not all humans biased in one way or another. If being abused creates bias, why wouldn't NOT being abused also not create bias. We don't have perfect access to information. Sometimes in order to be considered impartial, jurors are basically…

Impartiality in a jury trial context doesn't refer to the absence of biases (we all have them and truly getting rid of them is an impossible task), but a conscious effect by the jurors to discharge their office without prejudice, i.e., without allowing their biases to manifest as judgments independent of the evidence presented in court.

Put another way: there wouldn't be a point in deliberation if we didn't have biases. Our justice system trusts and (weakly) attempts to enforce the gap between those biases and prejudices that would actually interfere with the court's duty.

Re: The impact of sexual abuse on female development: a longitudinal study

#106

Post by sandworm101 » Thu, Jan 13, 2022, 6:05 PM UTC

jeffbee wrote: post #104

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If we are removing all jurors who have been abused because they are 'not impartial', aren't we left with a collection of people who are totally ignorant? The jury has to judge how a reasonable person would act in a certain situation, who is lying and who is telling the truth. Off one end, we have victim blamind and rapists walking free, off another end, uk had "serial liar" who invented false rape allegations and sen…

The whole jury system in founded on ignorance. Both sides don't want anyone who was a cop, knows any cops, has studied the law, or was ever arrested. Often, people with any kind of higher education will be dismissed. Last time I went to jury duty they asked anyone who had ever been party to any legal matter to leave. It's pretty wild.

>> Both sides don't want anyone who was a cop

Except for cops. Cops certainly like to have fellow cops on their juries. There is an old joke about removing Manhattan jury cases to Staten Island. All the NYPD cops seem to retire there. So if the case involves potential police wrongdoing or even just police testimony, one side wants a Staten Island jury as many jurors will have at least some familial connection to the police.

Re: The impact of sexual abuse on female development: a longitudinal study

#107

Post by SuoDuanDao » Thu, Jan 13, 2022, 6:05 PM UTC

quartesixte wrote: post #22

1980phipsi wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Patriarchal civilizations only began to outcompete non-patriarchal ones with the relatively recent advent of grain agriculture. There were many hundreds of thousands of years where men were stronger physically and patriarchy wasn't dominant (I mean that some civilizations were patriarchal and others were non-patriarchal).

Always a fascinating Alt-History scenario to me: what if the patriarchal societies didn’t win out early on? How drastically different would history had become?

there's an interesting documentary on a modern-day matriarchy, gave me a good idea of what one can imagine in such a situation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_l9D7tEixc

Different in regards to what is probably the relevant question, economic history? Military? Human Genetics? I don't imagine much would look the same.

Re: The impact of sexual abuse on female development: a longitudinal study

#108

Post by Syonyk » Thu, Jan 13, 2022, 6:07 PM UTC

zozbot234 wrote: post #77

willchang wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a man, is there anything I can do or avoid doing in the workplace to make it easier for coworkers like you? Let's assume I don't know and don't suspect anything specific about my coworkers. I just want to know if there's anything that would be pretty easy to implement, that would make a difference.

Mike Pence rule. Don't ever be alone with a vulnerable person without a neutral third party being present, it wreaks havoc on the threat-detection instinct. As the saying goes, "you're not paranoid if someone really is out to get you."

Billy Graham was the originator of the concept in his ministry [0].

Not only does it help prevent things from happening that could be a problem later, it helps prevent even accusations of such, if it's well known that the person involved holds to this rule and expects others to hold them to it as well. Say what you will about Pence, love him or hate him, nobody is accusing him of sexual misconduct - and that's the point of the rule.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billy_Graham_rule

Re: The impact of sexual abuse on female development: a longitudinal study

#109

Post by TigeriusKirk » Thu, Jan 13, 2022, 6:08 PM UTC

fullstop wrote: post #71

sandworm101 wrote: post #28

I find this to be the most telling stat: "In a few cases (N So roughly 5% (<5 of 84) of the control group were discovered to have themselves been abused and needed to be dropped from the study. I was once in a law lecture on medical ethics. We were discussing genetic testing of newborns and how this could detect incest/abuse. A medical doctor in the class was dead against such testing. In his experience, amongst preg…

My wife was summoned for jury duty, and the case had to do with sexual abuse. At jury selection time they ask if a prospective juror would have difficulty being impartial because of the nature of the case. If you were uncomfortable discussing the matter, you could ask to be taken aside to discuss without the others in the room hearing it. Out of a few dozen people, seven women left the room to explain why they could…

Similar experience here. In the last few months I was in the selection pool for a domestic abuse case. The judge asked if anyone had personal experience with domestic abuse and then asked each juror who raised their hand if they wanted to discuss it in private. Some gave a brief version of their story in the courtroom, usually it was their parents while they were growing up. Some preferred privacy, which the judge said they'd come back to later.

The jury selection was completed without ever calling those people in for private explanations. No one who had raised their hand for that question was selected.

As far as impartiality goes, I certainly felt some bias against the accused just based on the nature of the crime and his courtroom demeanor. But I was resolved that I would keep that in mind if I was selected and treat him as fairly as possible despite that. Impartiality is the ideal, and you usually have to make the effort to make it happen. In some circumstances where you have personal experience with similar crimes, that may be too much to ask.

Re: The impact of sexual abuse on female development: a longitudinal study

#110

Post by throwaway0a5e » Thu, Jan 13, 2022, 6:09 PM UTC

fullstop wrote: post #102

throwaway0a5e wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

edit: deleted, not worth trying to add any discussion to a topic like this.

> Seems like a hell of a leap. What are the odds someone is being abused concurrent with jury duty vs any other time in their life up until that point? Not really. In abusive relationships, the abuser often controls every aspect of the abused person's life and there are not opportunities to seek help without the abuser knowing. It's why there are sometimes signs in the bathrooms of women's health clinics informing th…

We've all heard that cliched phrase about the word "assume."

This happened in a courthouse, not a hospital. I think the context of the discussion behind closed doors could have just as easily been "that is so bad you really need to consider reporting it" or even something more mundane. In any case, seems a little farcical to assume that meant she was actively being abused though it certainly seems like a decent one of many possibilities.

I'm not saying your theory isn't plausible. I'm saying you're getting tunnel vision on the first plausible thing you came across.