> the conclusion that all government action against abuse is there for other purposes. This has been my conclusion also. I'd broadly expand it to include any e

> the conclusion that all government action against abuse is there for other purposes. This has been my conclusion also. I'd broadly expand it to include any efforts to wage a "war against $PROBLEM" where it tends to either mask or make $PROBLEM worse. Or, in the case of sexual abuse, make it harder for victims to seek help. Or even know they can get help. Then it levies onerous requirements on otherwise law abiding services to do the government's policing in its stead making the companies arbiters of right and wrong. > He was in it, literally, to prove that child abuse benefits children. Good Lord, these people are sick! > For the remainder the largest groups is people the family knows that aren't related. This is what happened to my friend. It was someone whom they knew, and the family knew, who abused not only my friend but also everyone's trust. Since it also happened in a foreign country and my friend is American, it complicated matters. I don't know if they ever elucidated the outcome, but I gather there was never any legal action taken. What worries me about this, too, is the fact that the abuser apparently has a family of his own now, and without any legal repercussions, I would be concerned that he might abuse his own children or their friends for the reasons you highlight. > You will never hear anyone discuss anything but the need to hide these to maintain the reputation of various institutions So true. No one wants to admit that there's a problem, and they will actively attack the people trying to stop it from happening. > like sexualization of youngsters in commercials and entertainment This is despicable, too. What's even more disgusting and reprehensible is the efforts by certain groups and companies trying to normalize this! Because the latter often has deep pockets, getting the government to do anything about it is probably an effort in futility. > It seems it is very hard for people to believe I'm not sure why, except to reference your earlier remarks about institutions protecting institutions and deliberate, willful ignorance. It only seems logical that people who have access to children will therefore be the more likely to abuse said children. So, it seems that at least part of the onus on resolving this rests on society and bringing to light the reality that, just because a truth is uncomfortable, doesn't make it any less true. At the risk of drawing the ire of others, I have half a mind to suggest that sometimes an appropriate length of rope is the only solution. Edit: I meant to thank you for your thoughtful (and thought-provoking) post! I appreciate you for taking the time to reply.