How about the basic “If you see something, say something” with lists of phone numbers?
Possibly.
When I went to social work school, I had a class with a rather controversial expert in child welfare policy. This was a while ago, but I learned some interesting stuff.
Mandating reporting is already a thing in a lot of states - ‘‘If you see something, say something’’ is basically law for certain professions. But here’s the rub - the vast majority of child welfare cases that come in through mandated reporting are unfounded. That is, the majority do not find substantiated evidence to support allegations of abuse. I’m talking over 90%. Mandated reporting appears to make professionals paranoid about losing their jobs for not reporting the slightest suspicion and ties up the child welfare system with stupid bullshit.
IIRC based on the research, the vast majority of substantiated cases of abuse or neglect came from voluntary reporters, and usually were reported by multiple sources.
This suggests that Corry El is right when he says there’s a balance we’ve gotta strike between awareness and paranoia. I’m guessing I’d set the bar much higher than he would for what constitutes ‘‘paranoia.’’ People expecting to be raped in public bathrooms by straight men pretending to be trans is paranoia. That’s not a thing that happens on a regular basis or probably ever. Rape in public bathrooms happens, but not nearly on the same scale as it happens at house parties and on dates and by *members of the child’s own family. * So statistically, it’s way more sensible to be paranoid about incest than some creeper on the playground.
Would this sort of systemic problem of mandated reporting extend to a billboard to the general public asking for reports on a voluntary basis? How far is too far? Where does this fit with the evidence that bystander intervention is an effective prevention education method? I don’t know.
Finding effective solutions is hard.
Except, I’m not sure I understand the logic. Does that imply that getting drunk is an excuse with an actual (non-daughter) date?
People may drink and have lowered inhibitions and have sex and it can still be consensual. It may be outside the norm of what you’d do if you were sober, but you can still say, ‘‘Well, I was drunk.’’ Obviously there is an extreme point of inebriation to which consent is not possible, but I’m guessing the billboard’s point is that there is no conceivable way in which sex between an adult man and his daughter can be consensual.
I’m guessing part of the point is that sexual predators rationalize the hell out of their behavior. Most view the victim as at least partly responsible for what happened. The billboard, again, places the onus of responsibility on the perpetrator. I’m also guessing the billboard is targeted at raising awareness about the huge statistical correlation between alcohol and sexual assault.
What?
*Your drunkenness, as an excuse, won’t suffice
Your daughter was drunk? Sorry, also no dice!
You claim you were hallucinating on shrooms?
Well, stop doing shrooms in your young daughter’s room!
Please stop rationalizing, thank you, Burma-Shave*
I think Corry El was describing the mentality of the people doing the witch hunts, not saying people were actually doing black magic.
A real thing happened in the 80s or 90s (I can’t remember which decade) where a bunch of people were put on trial and punished for satanic ritual abuse at preschools. There is no evidence such a thing ever happened, unfortunately, kids are just highly suggestible when put on the witness stand and there was rampant, unfounded paranoia at the time about Satanic cults sexually abusing children.
When children are sexually abused it’s not generally for Satan, just personal gratification or money. But child sex rings are definitely a thing and that is just as evil.
So, something like
*AT BEDTIME
DO WHAT
GOOD DADS DO
DON’T TUCK
YOURSELF IN
HER BED TOO
BURMA SHAVE*
Let’s shake on that!
Damn it, you’re much better at this. I’ll let you take over.
I’m squicking myself out thinking of these.
*FATHER’S DAY
WON’T RAISE
A SMILE
WHEN DADDY DEAR’S
A PEDOPHILE
BURMA SHAVE*
–
*HE SLEPT WITH HER
BUT NOW
WE’RE HOPIN’
DADDY SLEEPS
WITH ONE
EYE OPEN
BURMA SHAVE*
–
*THINK INCEST
ISN’T WORTH
A FUSS?
HOW’D THAT
WORK OUT
FOR OEDIPUS?
BURMA SHAVE*
“Oh, dad!”
Nothing to do with this thread. Drop it.
Yes, we all agree. But do you really think a billboard will make those pervos change their ways?
The issues isnt whether child molestation is wrong or bad. On that we all agree.
But it is whether or not a billboard will help- and I think it’s worse than useless.
No I single billboard won’t change anything. It rarely does. But as part of a larger campaign these billboards can help Shame can be very effective against some people. These billboards help send a message that other people in society condemn incestuous behavior with minor children.
Yeah. Sheesh.
When my mother was out of the country, and I was staying with my father and brother between college semesters, I accompanied my father to a few university functions (he was a full professor), I was 19 and 20; I was sort of his date, or “Plus one,” or whatever (people didn’t put “Plus one” on invitations back then, but there was a sort of understanding that when Prof. & Prof. were invited, if one Prof. couldn’t make it, Miss was welcome), in lieu of my mother. It was totally not creepy or incestuous. There was another professor who was a widower who occasionally brought his oldest child as a “Plus one,” when that child was old enough to attend a college function, which is to say about 16, and at one point that child was his son. I don’t think they got a second look.
And we condemn murder, rape, genocide, armed robbery, kidnapping…
I dont think that is a message anyone has a problem knowing. It’s hardly a surprise.
I think I understand what the purpose of such a billboard is. It is not aimed at perps (who are unlikely to be influenced by billboards) and it is not aimed, particularly, at victims. It is aimed at people who are neither, and who probably never give the topic much thought.
The purpose is to create unease (without being excessively graphic) and, so, to raise awareness of the problem; the idea is that ordinary people, who usually don’t think about incest, start thinking about it.
I can applaud that, but I can also see the point of the business folks in the town who aren’t so keen on having that billboard on the road into town.
They are concerned that the average visitor will not get the message ‘this is a caring community that thinks about, and so does something about, this widespread social problem that exists everywhere to an extent, but which often gets swept under the rug - but not, thankfully, here’.
They are concerned that the average visitor will get the message ‘this is a community with a real problem with incest. You know all those stereotypes ignorant folk spread about small towns in this state? Well, they have a solid basis in truth’.
I suppose it would be the same if the billboard was concerned with other social problems, like meth addiction: the town may well not want to be ‘tagged’ with that.
*IF YOU THINK
THIS BILLBOARD’S CREEPY
KEEP YOUR GIRL
FAR FROM YOUR PEEPEE
BURMA SHAVE*
Regards,
Shodan
I agree. Yet another way to bash men in general as depraved rapists and pedos.
The bad guys out there make up a very tiny percentage of the male population. The overwhelming majority of men don’t need a billboard to tell us how to respect our daughters. The sickos aren’t going to be deterred by a billboard.