Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No, there were NOT fewer opportunities before the 1960s. You have NO clue. Kids were less supervised back when I grew up. There were more opportunities because we walked alone and because our coaches and teachers and boy scout leaders and church leaders were *more* trusted.
It is women my age (I'm 67) who report having been molested at very high rates. And, it was in church youth groups, scout groups or with relatives that most of this happened.
No one is claiming that sexual abuse didn't happen before the 1960s. It's a matter of degree. And with all due respect, your personal experience doesn't tell us anything about the degree of the problem society-wide when you were young.
The single most important factor in preventing child sexual abuse is whether or not a child lives with his married biological parents. For whatever reason, potential abusers - teachers, coaches, scout leaders, clergy, neighbors, uncles, cousins, strangers - tend to leave these children alone. There are probably a combination of reasons for this. These children are not as emotionally vulnerable. They are more rooted in their communities. Their parents are more likely to discover the abuse early and expose the abusers. There isn't a stream of boyfriends distracting a desperate mother. (27% of abused children live with their mother's boyfriend or a stepfather) Etc.
" ... children living with their mother and her boyfriend are about 11 times more likely to be sexually, physically, or emotionally abused than children living with their married biological parents. Likewise, children living with their mother and her boyfriend are six times more likely to be physically, emotionally, or educationally neglected than children living with their married biological parents. In other words, one of the most dangerous places for a child in America to find himself in is a home that includes an unrelated male boyfriend—especially when that boyfriend is left to care for a child by himself.
But children living with their own father and mother do not fare much better if their parents are only cohabiting. The federal study of child abuse found that children living with their cohabiting parents are more than four times more likely to be sexually, physically, or emotionally abused than their peers living in a home headed by their married parents. And they are three times more likely to be physically, emotionally, or educationally neglected than children living with their married biological parents. In other words, a child is not much safer when she is living in a home with her parents if her parents’ relationship does not enjoy the legal, social, and moral status and guidance that marriage confers on relationships."
That makes today's children much more vulnerable to sexual abuse than children before 1960 in the United States.
From 1960 to 1995, the proportion of children living in single-parent homes has tripled, increasing from 9 percent to 27 percent.
Between 1960 and 2006, the number of children living in single-mother families grew from 8 percent to 23.3 percent.
40% of children will now live in a co-habitating household at some point in their lives.
And 34 percent of children currently live apart from their biological father.
Last edited by WesternPilgrim; 09-25-2012 at 03:36 PM..
No one is claiming that sexual abuse didn't happen before the 1960s. It's a matter of degree. And with all due respect, your personal experience doesn't tell us anything about the degree of the problem society-wide when you were young.
The single most important factor in preventing child sexual abuse is whether or not a child lives with his married biological parents. For whatever reason, potential abusers - teachers, coaches, scout leaders, clergy, neighbors, uncles, cousins, strangers - tend to leave these children alone. There are probably a combination of reasons for this. These children are not as emotionally vulnerable. They are more rooted in their communities. Their parents are more likely to discover the abuse early and expose the abusers. There isn't a stream of boyfriends distracting a desperate mother. (27% of abused children live with their mother's boyfriend or a stepfather) Etc.
" ... children living with their mother and her boyfriend are about 11 times more likely to be sexually, physically, or emotionally abused than children living with their married biological parents. Likewise, children living with their mother and her boyfriend are six times more likely to be physically, emotionally, or educationally neglected than children living with their married biological parents. In other words, one of the most dangerous places for a child in America to find himself in is a home that includes an unrelated male boyfriend—especially when that boyfriend is left to care for a child by himself.
But children living with their own father and mother do not fare much better if their parents are only cohabiting. The federal study of child abuse found that children living with their cohabiting parents are more than four times more likely to be sexually, physically, or emotionally abused than their peers living in a home headed by their married parents. And they are three times more likely to be physically, emotionally, or educationally neglected than children living with their married biological parents. In other words, a child is not much safer when she is living in a home with her parents if her parents’ relationship does not enjoy the legal, social, and moral status and guidance that marriage confers on relationships."
That makes today's children much more vulnerable to sexual abuse than children before 1960 in the United States.
From 1960 to 1995, the proportion of children living in single-parent homes has tripled, increasing from 9 percent to 27 percent.
Between 1960 and 2006, the number of children living in single-mother families grew from 8 percent to 23.3 percent.
40% of children will now live in a co-habitating household at some point in their lives.
And 34 percent of children currently live apart from their biological father.
I don't believe the statement "The single most important factor in preventing child sexual abuse is whether or not a child lives with his married biological parents" is something that can be backed up by fact unless of course one uses statistics from a religious organization. You see, it forgets at least one obvious question "what about adopted children?".
What about non loving or disfunction two parent families? Lot's of them in the years you quote since divorce was highly frowned upon and had a severe social/religious stigma attached so many people who would've today just divorced stayed together in a loveless sometimes violent marriage. Ever hear the term "we're staying together for the kids"? The other thing that puts these stats and conclusion in doubt is the stigma attached to the victims back then if they talked about it. Ever hear "you must have wanted it" or "you had to have done something to ask for it"?
It's pretty obvious the slant of the organization providing the data, they're all about the religious point of view which is fine but no more valid than any other opinion from anybody.
By the way, my data comes from growing up with many messed up kids from married parents, many real good kids from single parent or two parent non married households.
I don't believe the statement "The single most important factor in preventing child sexual abuse is whether or not a child lives with his married biological parents" is something that can be backed up by fact unless of course one uses statistics from a religious organization ... It's pretty obvious the slant of the organization providing the data, they're all about the religious point of view ...
I see that you didn't even bother to read the article before deciding that you knew where the data came from.
No one is claiming that sexual abuse didn't happen before the 1960s. It's a matter of degree. And with all due respect, your personal experience doesn't tell us anything about the degree of the problem society-wide when you were young.
[/font]
Get any 4 to 5 women my age in a room and ask them about abuse. It is likely that at least one of them will have been molested by someone.
You would be surprised (of course, those who don't trust you will not tell you, though). I am not talking about just my personal experience, but about my experience in talking to survivors.
The problem is that there are very few statistics on this prior to the 1970s and 80s because girls and women did not often come forward and tell. Many told ONLY when they were adults and having problems that led them to therapy.
Interestingly, quite a bit of this decline has happened among biological and adoptive fathers who have intact families. Thus, your supposition is *partly* correct, but note that in my day, a lot of this abuse occurred in intact families by biological dads. Multiple factors contribute to the decline and it does appear to be a true decline.
And you referenced an article written for The Witherspoon Institute which is a think tank that is solidly on the side of pushing a very conservative agenda. The Boston Globe named the author, Mr. Wilcox, as an emerging name in the conservative movement in 2009. So he has a bias.
Pulling statistics out of a national study to support an agenda. It's a common as rain falling from the sky.
Get any 4 to 5 women my age in a room and ask them about abuse. It is likely that at least one of them will have been molested by someone.
You would be surprised (of course, those who don't trust you will not tell you, though). I am not talking about just my personal experience, but about my experience in talking to survivors.
The problem is that there are very few statistics on this prior to the 1970s and 80s because girls and women did not often come forward and tell. Many told ONLY when they were adults and having problems that led them to therapy.
Interestingly, quite a bit of this decline has happened among biological and adoptive fathers who have intact families. Thus, your supposition is *partly* correct, but note that in my day, a lot of this abuse occurred in intact families by biological dads. Multiple factors contribute to the decline and it does appear to be a true decline.
Not to mention cousins,that favorite uncle (or aunt for that matter) brothers,sisters or the next door neighbor who's a best family friend.
That's just not accurate. Times change and human behavior changes with the times. There were fewer opportunities for sexual abuse before the 1960s. Human nature was better understood. Pornography hadn't yet flooded society. People still had a sense of sin and shame. With respect to men and women, boys and girls, more precautions were taken - the opposite sex wasn't thrown together in every imaginable context.
Also, in times past the overwhelming majority of children had their fathers in the home, and it's well established that children who are not living with their biological fathers are more susceptible to abuse for a variety of reasons.
As for priests, the majority of cases took place in the '60s and '70s, when sexual liberation was in the air and even the "experts" were making excuses for sexual deviancy.
Google James Janssen...he has quite a documented record of abusing before the sixties.
For as much as you'd like to talk about sin, shame, and human nature what would you say about the numerous church officials who failed to take action when complaints were made against him.
Interestingly, quite a bit of this decline has happened among biological and adoptive fathers who have intact families. Thus, your supposition is *partly* correct, but note that in my day, a lot of this abuse occurred in intact families by biological dads. Multiple factors contribute to the decline and it does appear to be a true decline.
Quote:
I don't believe the statement "The single most important factor in preventing child sexual abuse is whether or not a child lives with his married biological parents" is something that can be backed up by fact unless of course one uses statistics from a religious organization. You see, it forgets at least one obvious question "what about adopted children?"
Let's not keep spreading the misconception that abuse does not occur as often in adoptive families as there is absolutely no statistics to back that up. You have to remember when reading data that biological families far outnumber adoptive families. Many adoptees have been raped, neglected, & even murdered by their adoptive parents & adopting/being upper-middle class/passing a home study does not magically make someone less likely to abuse (or less likely to have abusive family members/trusted family friends).
I am going to have to agree with this, especially for the female teacher/male student senario. Way back more than a quarter of a century ago, we had a female teacher in high school, who was not young, who gave extra education to a few young man. The boys were thrilled and no one else seemed to care. Doesn't make it right.
It is news because it is unusual. How many car accidents do you see on national TV? None! That is because they are quite common.
TV news goes after ratings. They want stories with babies, sex, and violence (if it bleeds, it leads!)
FYI - I and everybody else I know went all the way through high school without ever being molested by anyone. Never knew of anyone attacked by opening their front door to a stranger. No one was killed by a mass murderer. And we have all seemed to survive without ever wiping "germs" off of shopping carts!
How do you know this for sure? Some of the people you know might not be telling you. Some of them might not even remember themselves cause they blocked it out.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
