Quote from: buttercup on March 25, 2008, 08:09:26 PM
Obviously, you haven't had much to do with children/child abuse or with people who have substance abuse!
I have had. There are large numbers of people, mostly women, who turn to substance use as a way of trying to ameliorate abuse. There are men who do the same.
Neither group, with the research we have to date and with the experience I have with inner-city American populations in the south and the northeast, forms even close to a majority of substance abusers or dependents.
Indeed there are multiple reasons people give for using substances to include weight-loss and fitting-in.
As I am sure Tekla will vouch for, I hold no brief for Tekla. In fact, I am more likely to 'call' Tekla than most anyone else here. But, in this case I think the dislike is getting in the way of the facts given. Yet, this time, with the exception of the 'churches' statement, Tekla is mostly correct.
Females are abused OVERWHELMINGLY more than males, adults or children makes no difference.
To label ALL of anything something is patently wrong, as well as untrue. Unless, of course, the label is something like "all humans are mortal."
I haven't a clue how many children, male and female, were abused sexually by priests. Trust me, in my own treatment practices there have been far more females than males abused -- there are more males than readily admit it among addicts who have spent or are spending time on the streets, but the incidence of females being abused in the same way is at least 2x higher than male sexual abuse of other males. Yet, I have never worked with a victim of abuse who has stated that their abuser was a priest, minister, imam or rabbi. So, in my experience the incidence of that is zero.
However many have reported abuse by fathers, step-fathers, uncles, and neighbors. An overwhelming majority of abused women are much more likely to be abused 'in the home' or 'in a safe place' than are males. Yet, females are told to 'never trust a stranger.'
OTH, males are mostly abused by strangers. Yet, males tend to feel safer among strangers. In fact we often encourage our sons to roam in one way or another.
The 'intuitions' we have about safety are skewed. Women are probably safer among strangers and guys are probably safer among relatives.
13 years of counseling and doing therapy with addicts who have also had mental illnesses & generally also have periods of homelessness.
Females are more likely to be re-abused sexually as adults than are males. Again, from simply populations I have worked with, but stats also show that to be true on an overall basis.
As a percentage of abusers relatives are probably number one -- especially if you include 'boyfriends' and second, third, fourth husbands. Priests, ministers and rabbis in comparison have a rather low rate of frequency overall, but tend to be focused on in a larger way due to media and cultural inclinations. Same is true for teachers, care-givers. And much of the media attention has centered on priests, Ashley. Not on protestant ministers of any variety.
Most of the focus on ministers has had to do with extra-marital w/ parishioners, or like the Haggard fellow, with male-prostitutes.
Tekla is absolutely correct about many of the statistics cited.
Is as much attention given to boys who are abused? No. And the way many boys are raised there are biases against report and treatment for them. Is that right? No, but, the projected differences are still not likely to bring their numbers up to anything like the abuse of female children. That seem unarguable to me. Again, most cultures tend to make certain their is opportunity for abuse of females, children and adults to a much greater degree than they do with males.
No one should be abused as a matter-of-course. But, as a matter-of-fact females have 'targets' painted on us to a much greater extent than males have.
Nichole
