131–140 of 380 posts
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 po…
It's much much much older than that, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yichud It doesn't prevent abuse by a close family member though.
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…
If you want more information on this, Besser van der Kolk's The Body Keeps the Score, considered to be one of the definitive books on the study of psychological trauma, discusses this in Chapter 10, "Developmental Trauma: The Hidden Epidemic".
While I don't have the book in front of me to quote explicit statistics, the chapter references a number of research studies backing up the conclusion of the doctor in sandworm101's comment.
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…
This appears to be binary thinking. There are nearly infinite degrees of bias. Strong emotions are one way to ensure that someone is heavily biased. That's what the jury system is trying to avoid.
So someone who has never been abused can still be biased in literally any way. But the presumption is that without having such an emotional personal experience with it means they are less likely to be heavily biased. They'll be more likely to be swayed by the testimony in court rather than their experience outside of the court room.
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."
The only way to treat this as gospel is to never be present with another woman alone.
That the tech industry is so inept with opposite gender interactions that they have adopted tactics from religious zealot evangelicals is APALLING.
Treat people as humans. Regardless of gender or sexuality.
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 comple…
Some women can be high functioning in every other aspect of their life and be rather well adjusted to being asexual.
In theory a woman could benefit from several years of therapy and hard inner work but it is going be much less fruitful if they are doing it because of somebody else.
A man can be completely dedicated and loving towards a woman who isn't responsive, want to grow old with them, be giving love in many ways and be very willing to give more and very motivated to work towards change but face the reality that anything they do is "pushing on a string"
It's a cruel reality that Aella's sexuality is worth $103,000 a month but that a man's sexuality is worth negative. A man who comes clean in public about their experiences and feelings inevitably attracts insensitive comments and abuse simply because of their gender. It is one of the many double binds that we face that we're told on one hand that we're supposed to open up emotionally but we get consistently punished when we do so.
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."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why should locking up child abusers be controversial?
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.
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 behaviors change.