181–190 of 380 posts
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…
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…
> In his experience, amongst pregnant teenagers (17 and younger) about 10% were pregnant by their own fathers/brothers. I refuse to believe that. I mean, yeah, the man had direct contact with such cases and probably had been in the field for tens of years while I'm just a computer programmer but I still refuse to believe it.
Before we take the information at face value, we would expect some kind of support for his statement from other professionals. There are scientists who study the factors relating teenage pregnancy, as well as advocates for sexual abuse victims who uncover and publicize facts like these. If the information is something that has never been formally studied but is something that doctors "just know," there are tens of thousands (at least) of medical professionals who have regular contact with different populations of pregnant teenagers in the United States alone. If there's a widespread suspicion that the number might be 10% or more, that would mean a lot more than one doctor making an off-the-cuff remark in the audience of a law lecture.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Being "open and friendly" is no good when someone literally has shell shock(!) (aka PTSD) from interacting with people like you. You'll need to behave in such a way as to demonstrate to them that they can intuitively and securely trust you not to be an immediate physical threat, nor to pose any in the foreseeable future. The quick rule-of-thumb is to be courteous and respectful but also establish very firm physical b…
Developmentally caused PTSD and shell-shock/war/later event PTSD have some differences. For instance, those of us with developmentally-caused trauma often view every person as a threat, because we were abused by our caregivers. (In my case, my mother.) This is because we need our abusers to survive, so we're used to abuse being a necessary part of life and something that can happen at any time/during mundane interact…
This makes plenty of sense, but then I'm not sure why you're expecting others to be physically friendly with you. Having a "friendly" interaction with someone generally presupposes some degree of physical quasi-intimacy that would seem to be quite incompatible with "not feeling like anyone is safe" to be around. This doesn't mean you can't be friendly in many other ways of course, but these interactions will nonetheless be quite different from what folks might otherwise expect.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you remove any jurors with history of abuse, do you not remove all the people that have life experience that could be relevant? With a jury of only lets say strong white males that have never been abused or abuse adjacent, but have had several experience where they felt woman didn't give them enough respect are we that would seem a lot worse to me. Obviously this sounds like an extreme example, but the reality is…
I think the whole concept of random citizens being pulled in for jury duty is idiotic. Jurors should be professionals who are trained in being jurors: who, for one thing, thoroughly understand topics in critical reasoning such as fallacies, and cognitive biases. They should be properly paid, and so are not sitting there on a Saturday morning, socking it to the defendant out of spite for being dragged out of their reg…
Of course judges are not always good as well. In the US they are often elected by a blood thirsty population. If they are not elected that has other issues in that the will of the people is not held by the judges.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Apparently something similar happened when X-Rays started becoming routine. Doctors X-raying kids saw evidence that so many of them had a history of broken bones from abuse. It took a while for the medical community as a whole to acknowledge that widespread child abuse was actually occurring, and longer to wrangle with the idea that it was something that was within their mandate as doctors to do something about. http…
There is a similar social issue waiting to blow up regarding genetic screening. Estimates are that 10-15% of children are from infidelity
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…
> So roughly 5% ( I hope this is accidental bias, or a statistical anomaly. It could be for example that this is overrepresented from the pooled community. I think it would also be important to somehow scale/categorize the level of abuse (physical vs non-physical, penetrative vs non-penetrative, etc). If it really is 5% (1 in 20 girls) then this would outrank something like COVID in terms of importance. > The compari…
"In a few cases (N I think you are misinterpreting. First, they say:
"...information was obtained about any possible unwanted sexual experiences of the comparison females or other family members"
So interpreting it as 5 of 84 women is incorrect. It's min 5 people of 84 families. Given a mean family size of perhaps 3.5 (if by "family" they mean "nuclear family", though I bet they include anyone you know about really--Uncle Bob would count, and one report per family with reports) it's more like 5 out of 294 people, or 1.7%. And I don't think they share their exclusion criteria, which isn't a good sign. And there's a significant selection bias given how they recruited (in a newspaper, for people who have the free time and/or low wealth enough to want to do a study, and in particular on female growth and development).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because a doctor's duty is to their patient, not the justice system. Breaking up the family might not be the best thing for the pregnant girl or newborn. I'm not saying they actively cover up abuse, but doctors know not to ask questions they don't want answered. Blanket genetic testing determinative to determine parentage is very dangerous knowledge.
I'm dubious that this lacks societal benefit overall. Even if we buy that breaking up the sexually abusive family is't the best thing (already dubious), there's strong second order effects of this disincentiving abuse. Automatic genetic testing also has other advantages of preventing future paternity disputes. Honestly, this would be an interesting thing for a single state to run an experiment with and see how behavi…
Given women cheat at the same rates as men, blanket genetic testing would break up a significant amount of families. That's why some countries (France for example) ban paternity tests.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 comple…
I don't know where you get that. The suffering of the woman is real. So is the suffering of the man. It only adds and doesn't subtract. I don't need to reiterate on the suffering of the woman because that is described very well in the article (which i posted!) You're being insensitive, treating me as a man the way that a black person might get treated in the 1950s south USA. Sexual pleasure is one of the great things…
This comes off as extremely insensitive and tone deaf to me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> So roughly 5% ( I hope this is accidental bias, or a statistical anomaly. It could be for example that this is overrepresented from the pooled community. I think it would also be important to somehow scale/categorize the level of abuse (physical vs non-physical, penetrative vs non-penetrative, etc). If it really is 5% (1 in 20 girls) then this would outrank something like COVID in terms of importance. > The compari…
We don't have hard numbers on kids, but we have some very solid numbers from young adults. From 2020 Statistics Canada study of university students: https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/85-002-x/2020001/article... >> One in ten (11%) women students experienced a sexual assault in a postsecondary setting during the previous year. About one in five (19%) women who were sexually assaulted said that the assault took the f…
Here is from that report, things that constitute "sexual assault":
"Sexual attack: Forcing or attempted forcing into any unwanted sexual activity, by threatening, holding down, or hurting in some way;
Unwanted sexual touching: Touching against a person’s will in any sexual way, including unwanted touching or grabbing, kissing, or fondling;
Sexual activity where unable to consent: Subjecting to a sexual activity to which a person was not able to consent, including being intoxicated, drugged, manipulated, or forced in ways other than physically;
Sexual activity to which a person did not consent, after they consented to another form of sexual activity (for example, agreeing to protected sex and then learning it had been unprotected sex)."
Don't take this to trivialize bad experiences people have had, take it as an attack on shoddy methods that are clearly designed to stoke fires of indignation rather than shed light on a prickly topic.
>Given that last stat... I don't think you're interpreting this correctly.