1 in 6 Boys and Men Experience Sexual Abuse – ‘A Step in the Right Direction’ for Men’s Rights?

If you want to know the secret of gaining massive upvotes at reddit mensrights there are three things you can do.  Firstly, be a woman, particularly a feminist asking 'can't we all just get along?'. Secondly, post a link about boys being sexually abused.  Thirdly, link to an image that requires an attention span of less than 5 seconds in order for the average redditor to decide to upvote and move on to the next link.

Last night one of the top posts on r/mensrights managed to achieve at least two of those criteria.  It was a link to an image of a poster on a Toronto subway train proclaiming that '1 in 6 boys and men experience sexual abuse', together with links to sites where you can donate money or pay for the services of a woman who will tell you just how fucked up you are.  According to the submitter of the link, and the 200+ men's rights supporters who upvoted it, this was 'a step in the right direction'.

http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/14qlje/seen_on_a_toronto_streetcar_a_step_in_the_right/

 

1-in-6-boys

The poster links to MindfulSupport.com, a site that gives the impression of being run by a collection of new age vegans.  According to the site, the first step of recovery from child sexual abuse is 'denial', that lovely feminist word that we hate so much when applied in the context of rape culture.

The other link on the poster leads to Lmtherapy.com - a site promoting the services of the psychotherapist Lynne MacDonell.  One of her pages is headed 'Advocacy - A Social Epidemic' - in which she appears to proudly liken the spread of sex abuse hysteria to that of a social epidemic that becomes uncontrollable upon reaching a tipping point (citing pop science author Malcom Gladwell).  She also proudly notes of 200 male child sexual abuse victims appearing on the Oprah Winfrey show as an apparent validation of her work.

Both sites appear to be sponsored or funded in some way by the Canadian or local (Ontarian) government.

Where does this patently ridiculous '1 in 6' statistic come from?  The men's Rights Supporters at Reddit instinctively clicking upvote on the link clearly didn't know.  No information is giving at MindfulSupport.com  However, Googling '1 in 6' brings you to the following information site : http://1in6.org/the-1-in-6-statistic/

Researchers have found that 1 in 6 men have experienced abusive sexual experiences before age 18. And this is probably a low estimate, since it doesn’t include noncontact experiences, which can also have lasting negative effects.

If you’ve had such an experience, or think you might have, you are not alone.

If you wonder whether such an experience may be connected to some difficulties or challenges in your life now, you are not alone.

Whoever you are, maybe you’re thinking something like, “1 in 6?! Come on, how can that be?” or even “That can’t be true!” Again, if so, you’re not alone. Those are common responses to this statistic, which many people find hard to believe – including men who’ve had such experiences themselves.

The page then goes on to briefly define sexual abuse. Although it begins with 'unwanted sexual contact' it contradicts itself almost immediately by declaring that any sex experienced by an under 18 year old with a significantly older person is sexual abuse.  Note that this would be a legal definition of abuse only in around half of the states of the USA, and almost nowhere else in the entire world (save for countries which still have a homosexual age of consent set at 18).

The sites then lists a handful of studies conducted in the USA that apparently support their statistics.  The figures quoted for each study range from 14% to 18% of boys being sexually abused.  Unless my maths is faulty, only one of the studies actually says 1 in 6 boys were found to be sexually abused.

Note that all of these studies were conducted in the USA, not Canada.  Thus the statistic is not even relevant for Canada, both for the reason of possible differences in the rates of sexual abuse in different nations, as well as the point noted above - the age of consent is generally 16 in Canada.  One presumes that a significant numbers of these 'abused' boys in those studies will have been 16 and 17 year olds engaging in willing sex with older partners (probably homosexual sex for the greater part).  Something that, in itself, is illegal neither in Canada nor anywhere in Europe (save for Muslim Turkey).

Thus the posters are making misleading claims and probably breaking false advertising laws.

I do not have time to go through each study in turn, but one deserves a brief closer look to illustrate the general junk science nature and feminist agenda of them all.

Note that all of these studies appear to deliberately avoid filtering out possible (actually near certain) correlation between child sexual abuse 'harm' and economic and social background, as well as the taboo of the sexual act itself, and assume that if teenagers engaging in sex with older partners are more likely to suffer 'harm' later in life then this proves causation.  Even though, given that sex with older partners is subject to a social and legal taboo, this is no more surprising than learning that teenagers who break the law or smoke cannabis have less success in later life than their law abiding peers.  The studies also appear not to seperate the effects of real unwanted abuse and abuse under feminist legal definitions (such as willing sex defined as abuse because of the age gap). Note also that in the study examined below, the definition of later harm in life includes 'problems with marriage and the family'. Hmmm..  By such a definition, feminism and its obvious influence on the divorce rate should automatically be considered as evil and as destructive as child sexual abuse.

The fourth study listed was of a 1996 study of male university students in the Boston area reported that 18% of men were sexually abused before the age of 16.

Details of the study can be found here : http://www.jimhopper.com/cycle/

Now 18% of men sexually abused before the age of 16 would be truly a shocking thing.  Let's look at this study a little more closely. The following is the abstract  :

A sample of 595 men were administered self-report assessments of childhood sexual and physical abuse, perpetration history, gender rigidity and emotional constriction. Including noncontact forms of sexual abuse, 11% of the men reported sexual abuse alone, 17% reported physical abuse alone, and 17% reported sexual and physical abuse. Of the 257 men in the sample who reported some form of childhood abuse, 38% reported some form of perpetration themselves, either sexual or physical; of the 126 perpetrators, 70% reported having been abused in childhood. Thus, most perpetrators were abused but most abused men did not perpetrate. Both sexually and physically abused men who perpetrated manifested significantly more gender rigidity and emotional constriction than abused nonperpetrators. Men who reported abuse but did not perpetrate demonstrated significantly less gender rigidity, less homophobia and less emotional constriction than nonabused men.

So the figure of 1 in 6 is arrived at through including noncontact forms of sexual abuse.  Now what noncontact sexual abuse could entail I have little idea.  Maybe being flashed at in a park by a lonely old perv?  Maybe being leered at by a homosexual on the beach when you were 15?  Watching a sexy MTV video featuring scantily clad dancing women when you were 13?  I don't know.  But I do know that none of these things would lead to any significant lasting harm to anyone other than an adult already infantalised and damaged by the moronic culture to which he belongs.

Straight from a University of Toronto's Women's Studies' text book, the paper goes on to describe that masculinity and gender norms, together with sexual abuse, explains why men are such evil violent bastards :

 Faced with such an intense conflict between the emotional legacy of abuse and the emotionally constricting dictates of their gender socialization, male victims must find some pathway to resolution. One pathway entails the rigid adherence to masculine gender norms, a resolution which requires the forceful suppression and repression of abuse-related emotions (Lisak, 1995). Such a rigid conformity to gender norms may result in an accentuated constriction of emotional experience that is particularly focused on "vulnerable" emotions -- the helplessness, shame and powerlessness associated with the abuse experience (Bolton, Morris, & MacEachern, 1989; Lisak, 1994a, 1995). Thus, the male abuse victim who adopts this resolution to the conflict would manifest an intolerance of his own distressful emotions.

Simultaneously, such a rigid gender adaptation would likely lead to an accentuated reliance on anger, the emotion which is most sanctioned by male gender norms (Mosher & Tompkins, 1988). Indeed, these authors, among others, have argued that men who rigidly adhere to gender norms for emotional expression are likely to convert a variety of emotional states, such as fear and helplessness, into anger. Thus, gender rigidity increases the likelihood that abuse-generated emotions will be suppressed and converted into anger, a dynamic that is likely to increase the propensity for aggressive action.

Such gender rigidity, with its resultant constriction in emotional experience, is also likely to interfere with the individual's capacity to constructively integrate his traumatic experiences. As described by Horowitz (1986) and Roth and Cohen (1986), such an integration typically requires periods of avoidance of traumatic information and affect, as well as periods of approach. The gender-rigid, emotionally constricted individual is less likely to be able to tolerate approaching the negative emotional states evoked by trauma, and more likely to avoid them, either by using psychological defenses, or by converting them to aggressive action.

A step in the right direction?

http://theantifeminist.com/is-the-forced-labelling-of-consenting-17-year-old-boys-as-victims-a-form-of-child-abuse/

http://theantifeminist.com/why-mras-fail-men-feminist-sex-law-hysteria/

http://www.angryharry.com/reTeaAbuse.htm

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/brendan-oneill/jimmy-savile-child-abuse_b_2017326.html

http://www.angryharry.com/es-Curse-of-the-NSPCC.htm

http://theantifeminist.com/category/the-nspcc/

*Note that I do not mean to denigrate the real victims of child sexual abuse, and the gender of the abuse victim should rightly be seen as irrelevant (except for the fact that boys mature later than girls, so any 'sex abuse' one would think would be more severe for boys than girls).

The fact is, the clumsy wholesale appropriation of the feminist child abuse industry by mRAs will help neither men nor boys. It is a falsehood to suggest that the 'abuse' of boys is treated less seriously than the abuse of girls - otherwise the 2000 year institution of the Catholic church would not have effectively been brought down by the public's obsession with the abuse of boys by priests.  What is the case is that female 'abusers' are treated less seriously than male 'abusers'.  And the answer for this is not to be found in creating our own version of the feminist child abuse industry and furthering paedohysteria that damages primarily men, boys, and society in general.  And when this appropriation of the feminist child abuse industry is undertaken by female 'mras' then it is truly disturbing.

 

 

16 thoughts on “1 in 6 Boys and Men Experience Sexual Abuse – ‘A Step in the Right Direction’ for Men’s Rights?

  1. Jack

    It doesn’t seem to occur to those deluded campaigners that as long as men are perceived by public opinion to be the chief or only perpetrators of abuse, setting up an male abuse industry as a competitor to the feminist abuse industry will only send more innocent men to jail. If only they’d written “1 in 6 boys are abused by female abusers”. It would’ve been no less ridiculous but at least it would have been legit propaganda. In fact I wouldn’t be surprised if those boys abuse lines were “manned” by women.

  2. ” What is the case is that female ‘abusers’ are treated less seriously than male ‘abusers’. ”
    This is the problem. There is a judicial double standard that must be broken. Women should be judged by the same laws as men. If this happens then sanity may return to the legal system. Until then, laws will continue to get more absurd because women know they wont be bound to them.

  3. Alan Vaughn

    @Rob

    What is the case is that female ‘abusers’ are treated less seriously than male ‘abusers’. ”
    This is the problem. There is a judicial double standard that must be broken.

    So the best solution is to have equal INJUSTICE for all?

    I think you’ve missed the entire point of this post.

  4. Alan Vaughn

    @Rob
    (sorry I clicked Submit button too soon)!
    You should have read (and understood) the rest of the paragraph you quoted:

    And the answer for this is not to be found in creating our own version of the feminist child abuse industry and furthering paedohysteria that damages primarily men, boys, and society in general. And when this appropriation of the feminist child abuse industry is undertaken by female ‘mras’ then it is truly disturbing.

  5. Jack

    Indeed I suggest one answer to the question “what are women looking for when they become MRAs?”: those women have come to the MRM to set up the boy branch of the sex-abuse industry. Reading the posts of female MRAs on some MRA bogs, you may have notice such posts lean strongly towards coaching and counselling. That’s something women and their phony degrees are good at, coaching men who didn’t know they’d been abused until they were told 30 years later. This all tallies since we already knew women cannot compete with men in the fields that make the world go round (engineering, economics, civilization). Thus women are focusing on psychological manipulation, a subject in which they excell.

  6. evilwhitemalempire

    “men who rigidly adhere to gender norms for emotional expression are likely to convert a variety of emotional states, such as fear and helplessness, into anger.”
    ————

    gee, i guess that means that that rabble of homosexuals that once roamed the streets of Germany back in the 30′s (the SA) must have really been in touch with their feelings!

  7. Eric

    Evilwhitemaleempire:
    Not only were the SA deeply in touch with their feelings, they had ways of making certain that everyone else was in touch with their feelings as well. There were re-education camps available for those who lacked such sensitivity!

  8. Eric

    Like Antifeminist pointed out at Reddit, the 1/6 figure has got to be completely fake. Just like the 1/4 American females who are rape victims, or the 2.5 million yearly victims of Satanic Ritual Abuse (we don’t hear much about them anymore, but presumably it’s still going on).

    The United States had 58,000 casualities in Vietnam and 2.5 million men were soldiers there during the war. That’s 1% of the US population who served in Vietnam; and practically everyone knows a Vietnam veteran (3 of my uncles).

    The United States had 5 million men in World War II, about 5% of the US population in 1940. I had 6 relatives in that war.

    Now, the claimed number of male abuse victims mathematically comes to approximately 25 million American men, based on census figures. And the reason I don’t know of any abuse victims? Because men aren’t in touch with their feelings enough to talk about it, apparently!

  9. Alan Vaughn

    @Eric,

    Now, the claimed number of male abuse victims mathematically comes to approximately 25 million American men, based on census figures. And the reason I don’t know of any abuse victims? Because men aren’t in touch with their feelings enough to talk about it, apparently!

    The feminist abuse industry (which now includes mRAs and femRAs), would probably add that such men are therefore ‘in denial’. According to their nonsense: coercing such a victim out of that ‘denial’, being the first step in recovery as a ‘child abuse victim’.

    This is so ridiculous. According to their (extremely broad and loose) definition: I am definitely a child abuse victim – I have discussed here recently how as a HS aged boy, I was propositioned (at least) by two adult gay men. I’m NOT ‘in denial’ it if I’m writing about here and writing about it in such a light-hearted, humorous way. I also make the point that I do not and NEVER DID consider myself a victim of any sort of abuse. I felt kind of sorry for those men, understanding that they cannot really help what they are.

    This is why I could never understand why nearly every man and boy I knew back then wanted to persecute and even KILL all ‘queers’ and ‘homos’. (The term ‘gay’ still meant ‘joyous’ or ‘happy’ back in the 1970′s).
    I later had my suspicions confirmed about those men when watching quite a long TV documentary one night, that explained how those men wanting to scapegoat, persecute and harm homosexual men were in fact self loathers, expressing their FEAR and trying to HIDE their own homosexual tendencies:
    They were effectively saying ‘Hey world, look at me: I can’t be a homo, because I am here, beating the crap out of this one’!…

    Of course, I am preaching to the converted here. We also understand here that the exact same psychological principles apply to what we all know as ‘paedocrites’ – those vigilantes wanting to burn men at the stake as filthy paedophiles for downloading cartoon images of Japanese schoolgirls in their sexy uniforms…

    Anyway, my point is that considering what the feminist / mRA Joint Venture, sponsored child sexual abuse industry defines as ‘abuse’, it seems that EVERYONE has been a ‘victim’ of at least some kind of abuse from an adult, at least once in their lives.

    Their primary purpose now is to exploit that ‘abuse’ and completely destroy what remains of our once functional, loving and family oriented society (by having phony, feminist junk science trained psychologists and counsellors, tinkering with people’s minds) and make billions of $$$ out of it.

    The feminist / mRA JV child abuse industry will soon surpass all oil companies, in terms of total wealth and control of the world’s economy; by directly controlling the minds of everyone.

    They MUST be stopped.
    We must tell people not to accept this feminist nonsense and ignore them as the lunatics they really are. Point out that it is not very ‘manly’ to accept any of this ‘child-sex abuse’ victim bullshit, feminazi propaganda.

  10. theantifeminist

    Post author

    Good points Alan and well put.

    The men’s rights co-adoption of the child abuse industry will be hard to stop because sites like A Voice for Men will quickly find that it will be their most lucrative source of income.

    I’m not suggesting for a moment that Paul Elam and John the Other will be taking vacations in the Bahamas on the back of it, or gaining personally from it in any financial way, but it will fund the men’s rights movement (or their version, which with this income stream will become ever more dominant).

    In that article that Paul wrote about ‘finishing what feminism started’ he explicitly notes the surprise he got when he realised that his biggest paypal doners were female.

    Sex sells, and sex abuse sells, especially when it involves children.

    It’s a shame, because we can all agree that AVfM does do some wonderful work, and I’m 100% behind their identifying of the University of Toronto criminal thugs who intimidated and used violence in public against innocent young men (wanting to hear a gentle elderly man speak).

    It’s just a tragedy that their activism will increasingly be funded by selling out to the feminist child abuse industry.

    EDIT : Isn’t it ironic, however, that the justification that those thugs used for protesting against Warrren Farrell was his questioning of the incest taboo, yet when one of us makes less controversial statements regarding feminist definitions of child abuse, Paul Elam shouts that we will bring down the movement and wishes that we be raped in prison.

  11. Alan Vaughn

    It’s just a tragedy that their activism will increasingly be funded by selling out to the feminist child abuse industry.

    Yep, hence my new name and hopefully meme: Feminist / mRA JV

    (Note the lower case m in mRA. The Feminist / mangina’s Rights Activists Joint Venture)

  12. Eric

    Alan:
    It’s not widely reported, but this is already what happens to girls who are ‘in denial’ about being abused (girls who insist that they were in love with their older boyfriends, for example). Government ‘Child Protective Services’ deem such girls as needing what they call ‘deprogramming’. The horrors these femihags must perpetrate on these girls would likely qualify as a human-rights violation if it happened anywhere other than America.

  13. Eric

    The other side of the coin, as Alan points out, is that once the abuse industry discovers these ‘male victims’ (i.e. a new cash-cow)the opportunities for witch-hunting and general feminazi mayhem has unlimited potential.

    In the future femihag police state, a man who’s ‘in denial’ will have to be re-educated to be more sensitive to his feelings. Any man, of course, who refuses to be a victim—well, if 1/6 of boys and girls are being abused, there must be LOTS of abusers out there too: so guess who’s automatically going to be a suspect? In our paedohysterical environment, suspects might be candidates for ‘Enhanced Interrogation Techniques’, (as our government refers to torture).

  14. Eric

    “…his biggest Paypal donors were female.”

    This in itself is suspicious. I wonder who these donors were?

    The Spearhead also is supported by donations, but I don’t remember Welmer ever mentioning female donors at all. In fact, he’s recently made another format change where his donors have some special commenting privileges and seperate forum and I don’t think there are any women there, certainly not the majority.

  15. Alan Vaughn

    Eric – ahh, that’s the expression I couldn’t find (in my head) ‘cash-cow’. Obviously, you understood me though…

  16. Alan Vaughn

    @theantifeminist

    EDIT : Isn’t it ironic, however, that the justification that those thugs used for protesting against Warrren Farrell was his questioning of the incest taboo, yet when one of us makes less controversial statements regarding feminist definitions of child abuse, Paul Elam shouts that we will bring down the movement and wishes that we be raped in prison.

    I only noticed you’d added that, just now.
    Yes it is ironic, in fact it’s a lot worse than mere irony…
    Hmmm… Why can’t I shake that word out my head whenever I see his name of late? (The word being paedocrite). You’ll probably censor this comment and that’s ok, but I think it needs to be said, considering also the way he holds feminist trolls of ‘Amanda’s’ calibre in such high esteem. Well he at least allows them to comment on his blog posts…

    Another thing I just realized, which also reinforces my contempt for the man, is how the rather outspoken blogger he recently banned for life from AVfM, (in similar fashion although a little more gently perhaps, than the way he dealt with Jay) has often been at the top of the comments list for upvotes, which means that many of his ideas are solid, logical and sensible in the eyes of other regular and esteemed AVfM readers and commentators.
    So, what does he do as soon as this same, otherwise quite highly regarded commentator dares to discuss male-sexuality demonization and criminalization by feminists, on his blog?
    He BANISHES him, forever!

    Hmmm…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>