3 ms·

https://www.rainn.org/statistics/perpetrators-sexual-violence https://www.rainn.org/statistics/perpetrators-sexual-violenc... I think it's time for a good thin

by moate 4y ago

https://www.rainn.org/statistics/perpetrators-sexual-violence https://www.rainn.org/statistics/perpetrators-sexual-violenc... I think it's time for a good think and a lie down.

ulizzle 4y ago
“33% Are committed by an acquaintance” which is more likely to be an internet friend, especially nowadays It is a false narrative to pretend that automagically means “oh it was the creepy” uncle
- eloisius 4y ago
  C’mon, do you really think the researchers here would say “well, he did send her a few DMs over TikTok before he got predatory so that makes him an acquaintance, not a stranger”? No, the entire exchange from the first time he saw one of her videos and followed her would be part of the predation, ergo a stranger predator.
  - true_religion 4y ago
    Would that make a teacher or priest a “stranger” predator since they had always planned on the act from the moment they met the child? Or are they a proper acquaintance since they are known in real life, and presumably also trusted by the parents? How about traditional pen pals? If the parents also know of the letter exchange is the person a stranger just because they have never physically met? I’m not sure how they came up with these statistics but if the categories are self reported then that’s subject to individual bias as to what is a stranger. There is no reason to assume that people don’t consider internet buddies to be “friends”.
    - eloisius 4y ago
      This is like coming up with a criteria for sandwich/non-sandwich. There is a strong social distinction between an anonymous adult person on the internet and a your church's youth pastor. Maybe they both do what they do for the explicit purpose of preying on children, but people would consider one a stranger and the other an acquaintance. No one would call an adult man preying on children online a "friend." Maybe the distinction for an acquaintance is that there is an original relationship between predator and victim that would be appropriate were it not for the abuse. There's nothing appropriate about a grown man messaging little girls online.
      - true_religion 4y ago
        We’ll the distinction is permanent to statistics if we don’t know whom was interviewed. If you interviewed a child, and they said someone they played video games online with was a “friend” then that’s the box they go into even if you and I would say that guy is a dangerous stranger. I think that’s what the OP was trying to say. We should be wary about statistics that say nearly all predation is done by known friends and family. Thus we should rightfully be worried about the online interactions children have, and not simply brush it aside as paranoia.

by moate 4y ago

https://www.rainn.org/statistics/perpetrators-sexual-violence https://www.rainn.org/statistics/perpetrators-sexual-violenc... I think it's time for a good think and a lie down.

ulizzle 4y ago

“33% Are committed by an acquaintance” which is more likely to be an internet friend, especially nowadays It is a false narrative to pretend that automagically means “oh it was the creepy” uncle

eloisius 4y ago
C’mon, do you really think the researchers here would say “well, he did send her a few DMs over TikTok before he got predatory so that makes him an acquaintance, not a stranger”? No, the entire exchange from the first time he saw one of her videos and followed her would be part of the predation, ergo a stranger predator.
- true_religion 4y ago
  Would that make a teacher or priest a “stranger” predator since they had always planned on the act from the moment they met the child? Or are they a proper acquaintance since they are known in real life, and presumably also trusted by the parents? How about traditional pen pals? If the parents also know of the letter exchange is the person a stranger just because they have never physically met? I’m not sure how they came up with these statistics but if the categories are self reported then that’s subject to individual bias as to what is a stranger. There is no reason to assume that people don’t consider internet buddies to be “friends”.
  - eloisius 4y ago
    This is like coming up with a criteria for sandwich/non-sandwich. There is a strong social distinction between an anonymous adult person on the internet and a your church's youth pastor. Maybe they both do what they do for the explicit purpose of preying on children, but people would consider one a stranger and the other an acquaintance. No one would call an adult man preying on children online a "friend." Maybe the distinction for an acquaintance is that there is an original relationship between predator and victim that would be appropriate were it not for the abuse. There's nothing appropriate about a grown man messaging little girls online.
    - true_religion 4y ago
      We’ll the distinction is permanent to statistics if we don’t know whom was interviewed. If you interviewed a child, and they said someone they played video games online with was a “friend” then that’s the box they go into even if you and I would say that guy is a dangerous stranger. I think that’s what the OP was trying to say. We should be wary about statistics that say nearly all predation is done by known friends and family. Thus we should rightfully be worried about the online interactions children have, and not simply brush it aside as paranoia.