Harm to Boys and Leniency Toward their Female Abusers in Australia
October 26th, 2009 by Robert Franklin, Esq.If women are treated more leniently, it may be that there is a pervasive view that no real harm is done. But there is growing evidence that not only are young male victims of female sexual abuse severely affected, but that they are also at higher risk of going on to become abusers themselves.
This excellent article out of Australia deals with sexual abuse of boys by older women, its effects on them later in life, attitudes about that and the lenient sentences women who commit statutory rape incur (The Age, 3/10/06). It's not a new piece, but it's worth revisiting, particularly since the Rudd government seems poised to roll back equally shared parenting laws on the flawed premise that men are uniquely dangerous to children.
The article points out that boys who are sexually abused by older women are potentially harmed for life. Specifically, they themselves tend to incur short term depression and long time problems with intimacy with women. Worse, it cites four Canadian studies as finding,
"an alarmingly high rate of sexual abuse by females in the backgrounds of rapists, sex offenders and sexually aggressive men (and) male adolescent sex offenders abused by 'females only' chose female victims almost exclusively".
Obviously, those are correlational, not necessarily causative factors, but, as with all significant correlational data, they may suggest a measure of causation.
Whatever the case, researcher Patrick O'Leary of the University of South Australia has found that the effects of female sexual abuse of boys is, if anything, greater than that of male abuse of boys.
As to sentencing of female abusers of boys, the article says,
A series of research papers released last September by Victoria's Sentencing Advisory Council has noted that women convicted of manslaughter and murder receive shorter prison terms and shorter non-parole periods than male offenders. That difference may be partly explained by the differing circumstances underlying male and female homicide, but even in cases of culpable driving women are treated more leniently, with shorter average sentences — although the latest statistics show the gap is closing.
Given that background of leniency in sentencing of female perpetrators, the article wonders if the same might be true of female sexual abusers of boys. It goes on to cite several cases in which female perpetrators were given suspended sentences and quotes one judge as saying,
"It does seem to be an offensive principle that a female teacher in these circumstances is treated more leniently than a male teacher would be."
One of the possible reasons for the leniency is the widespread public perception that boys are willing participants and therefore no harm has been done. The article, to its great credit, is a pains to dispel that notion.
While it's true that, for many adolescent boys, having sex with an older woman may fulfill a fantasy. But boys have lots of fantasies that we would hesitate to exonerate adults for helping them act on. A boy might fantasize about using crack cocaine. Would it be OK for an adult to buy it for him and show him how to smoke it? The point is that boys aren't adults and don't always know what's good for them. To exonerate or treat with leniency an adult because of a child's misconceptions simply doesn't make sense.
As Dr. O'Leary says,
"The idea that it's some sort of fantasy or that it will be a rite of passage is a myth."
Thanks to Michael for the heads-up.
"));
19 queries. 0.342 seconds.
October 26th, 2009 at 10:15 am
Compasion for men is a new and revolutionary concept.
The message is begining to grow.
Now I think there is a chance for a better world, a fair world.
Thanks for the hope Robert and Glenn.
October 26th, 2009 at 10:25 am
If women are treated more leniently, it may be that there is a pervasive view that no real harm is done. But there is growing evidence that not only are young male victims of female sexual abuse severely affected, but that they are also at higher risk of going on to become abusers themselves.
About damn time someone noticed. Usually when a boy is abused he is ignored by the system until a few decades down the road when he becomes abusive to women which is when it is declared there is a problem. No one cared about little Johnny when he was abused at age 10 but everyone will line up to condemn Johnny when he is 35 and beats his wife to death.
"an alarmingly high rate of sexual abuse by females in the backgrounds of rapists, sex offenders and sexually aggressive men (and) male adolescent sex offenders abused by 'females only' chose female victims almost exclusively".
I think this is an indication of a vicious cycle of violence. I'll bet the women that abused today's sex offenders when they were children were abused themselves as children and so on and so on... Thing is in order to believe this one is required to believe that women are capable of acts of abuse and violence and there are a lot of people who still can't handle that reality. This might be why when people bring up that abusers were abused themselves they are shouted down as rape apologists or told that it doesn't matter (yet this doesn't apply to women who kill their alleged abusers).
One of the possible reasons for the leniency is the widespread public perception that boys are willing participants and therefore no harm has been done.
I know you said "one of the possible reasons...." but this does not explain why even when both abuser and victim are female the abuser still gets leniency. This could be explained by the public perception that women "just don't do things like that" therefore there must be something that made them do it (which can feed into what you say here when you look at defenses that claim the boy victim in question was the one that abused the female teacher).
While it's true that, for many adolescent boys, having sex with an older woman may fulfill a fantasy. But boys have lots of fantasies that we would hesitate to exonerate adults for helping them act on.
You ever notice that a girl that fantasing about having sex with an older man (because she is so mature that boys her own age are beheath her therefore she needs an older man) does not come up in abuse/rape cases in which the girl "consented" (by that I mean yes she agreed to have sex with him but as a minor she could not legally consent in the first place or in other words the rapist would try to call this consent).
October 26th, 2009 at 10:25 am
The law does not distinguish between male and female adult sexual offenders. It's a crime regardless of gender and needs to be pursued in the same manner.
And as always a big thanks to Glenn and Robert. This is a great forum for discussion and enlightenment. A huge first step to begin the process of true equality for all regardless of gender.
October 26th, 2009 at 10:47 am
Hulkmania Says:
October 26th, 2009 at 10:15 am
Compassion for men is a new and revolutionary concept.
The message is beginning to grow.
You don't have compassion for ANIMALS like men. They are all a bunch of rapists, abusers, and batterers....
Even if they are losing their jobs no compassion must be shown...
No Country for Burly Men
How feminist groups skewed the Obama stimulus plan towards women's jobs.
by Christina Hoff Sommers
06/29/2009, Volume 014, Issue 39
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/016/659dkrod.asp?pg=1
October 26th, 2009 at 10:54 am
Glenn does a great job defending the rights of men and non custodial parents regardless of gender. Glenn seeks the moral high ground like our fathers and grandfathers did. A display of character, honor, and sense of justice from years gone by....seldom found today.
This would be great except when your up against militant, angry feminists, using high morals, values, and ethics is like bringing a knife to a gunfight.............
We're losing.
October 26th, 2009 at 11:13 am
No problem, Robert. The thing that pains me the most is that in some of the discussion forums in which I participate, male-dominated ones, the common misconceptions, myths, and "cheering" goes on anytime we broach a topic centered around the latest story of woman-on-child (boy) sexual abuse, rape, statutory rape, etc.
Too many still believe it's a "great thing" for a younger boy to "bag" an older woman (as if it's the boy who is perpetrating the predatory behavior. They also believe it doesn't psychologically harm a 13, 14, 15 year old boy nearly as much as it does a girl of the same age.
Worse still is, when I try to play devil's advocate and present them with the fact that girls mature mentally and physically earlier than boys, then they're logic (or lack thereof) should equally (or more) mean that they are better prepared and equipped to make a decision to engage in a sexual relationship with an older man.
Nope. They want it both ways and it's shocking to me. Still, I persist in sharing the realities of the situations to them even in the face of all of the jeering and often close that I hope that it isn't their children who become victimized as I'm sure that their tone will change rather significantly.
October 26th, 2009 at 11:46 am
They also believe it doesn't psychologically harm a 13, 14, 15 year old boy nearly as much as it does a girl of the same age.
Yet weirdly they can also say that girls mature faster than boys.
October 26th, 2009 at 2:30 pm
Yet weirdly they can also say that girls mature faster than boys.
This is one part of gender relations that is never talked about but always quoted. If girls mature faster than boys then why aren't girls held to a higher standard when they statutoraly raped? I personally don't want them held to a higher standard but right now they are held to a lower standard. When a young boy is raped people openly joke about how "lucky" he was (late night talk show hosts especially). I've never heard Leno joke underaged girls being statutoraly raped. When a girl is raped under those circumstances that rapist is properly dogged to ends of earth, locked up, and the key melted down...except when the rapist is a woman.
October 26th, 2009 at 4:16 pm
Wow! from the man-hating age newspaper, well I still think newspapers must be die.
October 26th, 2009 at 8:12 pm
Thats not the only thing being rolled back. At the time this Age piece was written the Liberal party had been in power federally for a decade. Unlike the Australian Labor Party the Libs at least acknowledged the existence of male victims even if they did little to address them. The ALP has been in active, determined denial of male victims for ever and a day. The ALP won't even permit the national statistician, the Australian Bureau of Statistics, to ask men or boys if they have been abused. This was completely contrary to the advice of the Bureau whose instruction was that any programs developed from gender specific surveys would be ineffective. Everything the Labor party does is premised on the female/victim - male/perpetrator paradigm we are so used to seeing.
The ABS and ALP interaction I mention occured in the mid nineties. The intervening Liberal govt allowed the ABS to do a gender neutral study in 2005. Lo and behold a third of the victims of partner abuse are male! Four years later the Rudd Labor govt is back to the standard ALP denial with it's "action plan". We have here a case of the magically vanishing male victim.
Indeed the Rudd government's "action plan" on "Violence Against Women and Their Children" effectively marginalises half the victims of child sexual abuse, a third of the victims of partner abuse and two thirds of the victims of child abuse. It seems they wish to put children into the ownership of those who abuse them the most. They possibly marginalise more victims than they address.
Several years ago a psychologist/counsellor of my acquaintance told me that three quarters of the men in prison for rape had been molested by a woman in their earlier life. Being significantly more naive at the time I argued that it was an excuse invented by rapists to excuse their own acts. He merely suggested I consider where their anger comes from and that, as a victim myself, I should be able to understand that anger.
Later I found consistant research outcomes supporting his assertion, including those mentioned here. We should be wary however. Studies of victims, as distinct from perpetrators, indicate that between one in seven and one in ten victims are likely to commit abuse themselves. Furthermore there have been claims made by specialists over the past couple of years that female victims are as likely as male victims to become perpetrators.
By not being fair to all victims we blind ourselves to opprtunity for prevention. The abuse that is cyclical in nature must be addressed in totality. By marginalising some victims we ensure the instant resumption of those cycles.
And the beat goes on.
To expand...
Adolescent boys go through a phase during which they distance themselves, of necessity, from the woman/mother centered universe they grow up in. The woman who pushes herself into that boy's life overtakes the roles of mother AND lover. It is incredibly distorting to the victim's concepts relating to gender roles and behaviour. Girls, whilst certainly having their own developmental issues, do not go through the same necessary distancing from those gender roles and perceptions.
We have all seen dramatic presentations involving serial sex killers wherein allusions are made to something shady in the killer's relationship with his mother. We are very coy about it and rarely link specifically to sexual abuse. Pre-pubescent boys abused by their mothers have extraordinarily poor outcomes. The coincidence of "mother" and "lover" roles is very much at the heart of this.
Except that the reality is that equivalent age girls behave in exactly the same way as boys in these circumstances. The dynamic of the adult/teenager scenario appears to have nothing to do with gender.
October 26th, 2009 at 9:02 pm
re the 2006 Age article...
It does contain several errors of fact particularly relating to the fate of the perpetrators.
In particular it refers to Cheryl Whittle raping a fourteen year old - he was thirteen - and "trying" to get child support from him. I believe her victim was already paying child support, or was about to be compelled to do so, when the young man successfully sued for custody of the child. The child support issue was one of his motivations in attempting to gain custody.
Interestingly the Australian Family Court in hearing this application must have become aware of the circumstances. But NO action was taken against Whittle at that time. It was another six years before the victim was able to get her charged over her original crime. It seems that, unlike every other institution in the land, that the Family Court are not subject to mandatory reporting of child sex offences.
At least where the perpetrator is female anyway.
October 26th, 2009 at 10:07 pm
"One of the possible reasons for the leniency is the widespread public perception that boys are willing participants and therefore no harm has been done."
Perhaps this public perception issues from an idealized view of the nature of the abuse.
No-one anywhere would imagine that a boy of 12 would enjoy being forced to perform oral sex on a violent middle-aged woman - it is too disgusting to contemplate. But this is the sort of thing that happens, and the offenders are being given light sentences (or none at all) for no reason other than that they are female.
October 27th, 2009 at 3:56 pm
gwallan:
By not being fair to all victims we blind ourselves to opprtunity for prevention. The abuse that is cyclical in nature must be addressed in totality. By marginalising some victims we ensure the instant resumption of those cycles.
Which makes me wonder if those who marginalise certain victims seek to continue the cycle of violence/hatred and if so why do they wish to continue it.
Even a hero as great as Superman is nothing without a Lux Luthor to fight. Otherwise who would Superman fight and with no one to fight how would we know he were a great hero?
We are very coy about it and rarely link specifically to sexual abuse.
Coy indeed. It is interesting when talking about a male abuser his relationship with his mother might come up but will only go as far as using it as proof to call him a sick freak, whereas a female abuser whose relationship with her father is often used as a reason to keep her out of prison.
October 28th, 2009 at 12:30 pm
"One of the possible reasons for the leniency is the widespread public perception that boys are willing participants and therefore no harm has been done."
Maybe it's time we take a look at the population that comprises the "public" that forms this perception. Statistically there are estimated to be over 100 million survivors living with the effects of childhood sexual abuse worldwide. With a number that great it is possible that our perception is that CSA happens to nearly everyone. It could be perceived by the masses as part of growing up. These 100 million survivors that are living with the effects of CSA are still themselves on a healing journey. I represent a newly formed non-profit called the Let Go...Let Peace Come In Foundation and our mission is to help heal and support adult survivors of childhood sexual abuse. We believe that it is important to heal society from the top down. This means that we have to ensure that we have healthy grandparents, parents, aunts and uncles so we can begin to change the public perception and provide a healthy and peaceful environment for future generations to flourish in. Right now CSA occurs in a cyclical fashion and because it is shrouded in such secrecy and shame it continues to grow at an exponential level. Please visit our site http://www.letgoletpeacecomein.org for more information on how together we can break the cycle of silence and abuse.
Thank you for everything you do.
Warmest Regards,
Gretchen Paules
Administrative Director
Let Go...Let Peace Come In Foundation
111 Presidential Blvd., Suite 212
Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
October 28th, 2009 at 8:45 pm
Reminds of the that song by sting "dont stand so close to me" It was about when sting was a school teacher and the pupil girls were in love with him. There most certainly is a glaring double standard here that only the blind and stupid can ignore. Many Young girls fantasize about having relations with an adult male just as young boys do about adult females. So why is there this glaring double standard?