Is this recent enough?
2010? That’s like, two years ago, man! Haven’t you got some stats from the last six hours?
I think steps need to be taken to protect the children BEFORE sexual abuse occurs, not AFTER. A previous poster stated that proactive steps were being taken in her hometown, (actions I applaud.) She considered them to be a huge inconvenience, but here again, if one of her kids is ever subjected to such abuse, she will feel differently.
We could start with some simple things, such as no longer allowing male coaches, male teachers (etc) to be alone with our children. If the kids’ activities involve sleepovers, there should be sufficient female chaperones. Don’t allow children to visit the “nice old couple down the street” without supervision. And mothers need to be a hell of a lot more vigilant than they are now. Especially about what goes on in her own home.
Sounds promising, but I find it hard to believe.
Seems fairly clear that your case is not against male sexual abusers, but against men in general. Men apparently need to be supervised by women, all the time.
I can state definitively that I have not abused any children in the last six hours.
Wait, what time is it now? Okay, make that the last five hours and thirty-five minutes.
I truly hope it never comes to this. What sort of message is this sending to our boys? That they will be feared and mistrusted when they become men? Might as well start the self- loathing when they’re young, those (future) perverts! What message does it send to girls about what their families and communities think about men? These little guys are going to grow up to be men and women one day, you know.
Your male teacher, coach, policeman whatever, can’t be trusted? This is just so over the top as to be ridiculous.
Lady, I would love to know what effect you think this “vigilance” is going have on the psyches of our future generations.
[ul]
[li]Tigers are dangerous (this is a well known fact)[/li][li]In 2009 tiger attacks on humans were on the increase(this might not be recent enough to be relevant, or easy enough to believe)[/li][li]Tigers are mammals (cite)[/li][li]Therefore ALL mammals should be treated with great suspicion, in case they turn out to be tigers.[/li][/ul]
To date, my son has not been raped. I’m trying to help him deal with the self esteem issues this has caused.
I can think of two times where I was afraid to approach children actually. Once, my family went to a Lido where there was a kid in a nappy playing by himself at the edge of the lake. No adults - in fact, no people, for about 50 metres. I watched him for a while to see if he’d be approached when he upended. Someone (presumably a parent) came running after him, so I figured he wouldn’t drown.
Another time there was a kid about to walk into the road with an SUV driving towards us. I just stood between the child and the road, so I didn’t have to actually grab them. Parents ran over and thanked me.
LadyMadonna your ideas are terrible. There are four pages in this thread so there’s no point in going into why they’re terrible ideas. It shouldn’t even need explanation.
LadyMadonna, have you met Der Trihs? I believe he has met you (or a sister soul) in the past.
[ul]
[*]The purpose of tigers is to flip out and kill people.[/ul]
That did make me laugh.
This sort of thing has happened to me (and many other men too, I expect) - Without ever having done anything wrong, we’re already suspected rapists/paedophiles, to the extent that my first thought, when seeing anyone in danger is no longer: “How can I help?”, but rather: “*Can *I actually help, without my motives being misunderstood?”.
It ought to be a simple equation - the needs of a person at risk are more important than my petty fears, but what if the danger is not immediate (small child wandering alone in the woods - maybe lost, maybe not, but parents nowhere in sight) - and any action I might take would reduce not only the risk, but also the later perception that there even was a risk.
It’s bad enough already, without LadyMadonna’s ideas passing into statute. Do you really want to create a world where men (the vast majority of whom are probably not paedophiles or rapists) are too fearful to render aid when they see a vulnerable person at risk?
Any benefit you gain in reducing abuse, by assuming the worst is going to be overwhelmed by the harm caused in increasing the occurrences where everyone was too scared to help.
[quote=“Ludovic, post:173, topic:628595”]
[ul]
[li]The purpose of tigers is to flip out and kill people.[/ul][/li][/QUOTE]
I think you mean mammals. There’s no difference.
[quote=“Ludovic, post:173, topic:628595”]
[ul]
[li]The purpose of tigers is to flip out and kill people.[/ul][/li][/QUOTE]
Dammit! Tiger’d!
Ok everybody, shut the thread down. LadyMadonna’s feelies have weighed in on the issue.
Even if we were to institutionalize and codify paranoia about men, we would still miss the hugest, although probably not the majority, of the abusers: fathers. Unless of course we make sure that all fathers were not allowed to be alone with children, ever.
Forget that, let’s just say that no men are allowed to become fathers, ever. In fact, let’s just outlaw sex altogether and force everyone to reproduce asexually by budding, like yeast. Then the offspring would be genetically identical clones, and no man would want to abuse that because then it would be like molesting himself :eek: