(CW Child abuse) Why do mothers not protect their children from abusive boyfriends

Oh look, another astonishing misrepresentation.

I have never said all people who have been abused are themselves abusers, in fact I said in my last sentence some people have been abused are lovely, as is my friend.

Living in poverty is not the only ACE there is, and yes living in poverty is associated with poor role models ( not everyone) but the stress of having little money can cause parents to be harsh with punishments or have addiction issues etc, or are less available for their children because they have to work every hour God sends and are exhausted.

Also, your genetics don’t alter because you are sexually abused, but being abused can alter your brain development and over time, if you are abused consistently, can alter gene expression.

Of course having poor emotional regulation can affect the likelihood of someone being abusive, that doesn’t mean to say I’m excusing it, at all!

I never once excused abuse or claimed that everyone who has been abused will go on to abuse because I know that is simply not true and cannot be universally applied. Many, many people who have suffered ACE’s are absolutely lovely and their awful experiences mean they are really empathetic towards the plights of others, but also it’s rubbish to claim that everyone is less likely to be abusive as it just doesn’t make any logical sense.

So sending sexual images to children is not abusing them? Are you actually arguing that is ok?

What are we actually talking about here? I was responding to your post where you talked about children sending self-made sexual imaged of themselves to other children. This is not categorised as child sexual abuse in law. I haven't argued, or even suggested, the behaviour is ok. I haven't expressed any opinion on it at all. But now you appear to be talking about the the sending of sexual images of children in general, rather than self-made images sent from one child to another child. You're making two plus two equal five repeatedly throughout this thread.

I read the study as your mate will pretend I ignored it and this study has lots of contradictions which I would be grateful if you care to explain why they are so?

The paper isn't a study, it's a literature review which reviews the findings of studies on a specific topic and provides an overview of the research.

Also the study states that adults were involved in some cases involving children. Why is it considered ok for an adult to do this in your mind?

Could you please direct me to where I have stated or suggested it's ok for an adult to send sexual images to children?

However thankfully the study can be further examined as it states:
The study itself reports that 7/10 who reported having sent images of themselves as being scared and afraid and some as a result of coercion and blackmail. It also shared that many who received it felt the same way. Also the study reports that included in that data is multiple reports that someone else took nudes of them and shared them.

It's very difficult to comment on this when you haven't quoted the actual text in the paper, you've just provided your interpretation of something and claimed it's what the paper states. The only reference to feeling embarrassed and afraid I can see is this:

'Research exploring young people’s attitudes to sexting also suggests that many individuals are aware of potential adverse consequences (see Kopecký, 2011; Henderson and Morgan, 2011). Seventy three per cent of Kopecký’s (2011) sample cited possible negative outcomes, including ‘exploitation or bullying’, ‘legal ramifications’, ‘disciplinary punishment from school’ and ‘public disgrace’. Mitchell et al., (2012) also found that individuals can experience a negative emotional impact after sexting. Twenty-one per cent of their sample reported feeling very or extremely upset, embarrassed or afraid.'

Are you getting your 7/10 figure from the seventy three per cent in Kopecky's study? Because that figure refers to awareness of potential adverse consequences, not the percentage of participants who have experienced those consequences themselves. Here is what Kopecky's study says:

'Almost three quarters of respondents (73.10 %) regard sexting as risky and dangerous. Although they are aware of the dangers, 5.83 percent of them share sexually suggestive materials and 8.51 percent send these materials to other people. The respondents have given several reasons why sexting can be regarded as dangerous [...]'

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/236019455_Sexting_among_Czech_Preadolescents_and_Adolescents

"Only 1 youth reported forwarding or posting" Which makes no sense at all.

Again I can't find this quote in the paper, but regardless I'm not sure what part of that doesn't make sense.

So thanks for that great study. I prefer to use studies that are not contradictory or include kids who are coerced as being perpetrators thank you.

I don't know what you mean by this and to be honest I'm totally lost with regards to what point you're trying to make. You clearly don't understand data, statistics or research and it's not my job to educate you.

I’m not excusing anything. There are gene / environment interactions which, while they do not cause aggression, they increase the likelihood of people being aggressive. Being aggressive is a choice, so if genes have nothing to do with it, why are people aggressive then? Learned behaviour? Which is what I was saying about ACE’s, somebody who has had a miserable childhood often normalises abuse or becomes resentful and angry and abuses others.

Males are also biologically more powerful and intimidating and sexually driven so it’s not a surprise that men are more abusive than women, and would explain why, even though women are more often abused, males are more likely to be perpetrators.

No, I don’t support babies being taken from mothers without evidence that those mothers’ have abused their babies.

I know imagine telling someone an adult can never say they are in an abusive relationship as abuse is only for kids not adults.

The irony of omitting things when you haven't read it things and have chosen to ignore things yourself.

Looks like the safeguarding boards need telling that abuse doesn't happen to adults.

So sending sexual images to children is not abusing them? Are you actually arguing that is ok?

Wow!

Sorry but in my field of work if a child is sent a sexual image of someone this is illegal as and it is illegal to make and distribute images of children. It is a form of abuse.

Oh completely girls will sent to males and to other girls and males to other males. Shocker that you only just realised this!

I read the study as your mate will pretend I ignored it and this study has lots of contradictions which I would be grateful if you care to explain why they are so?

The quote says this:
"suggesting that either boys are more likely to engage in sexually revealing self-exposures (such as posting nude or nearly nude pictures or videos of themselves) (Jonsson, Priebe, Bladh & Svedin, 2014), or that more girls engage in sexting behaviours (Mitchell et al., 2012; Reyns, Henson and Fisher, 2014; Martinez-Prather and Vandiver, 2014)."

Then it says this:
Recent research findings suggest that females may be more likely to send self-produced sexual images than males (Mitchell et al.,2012; Reyns, Henson and Fisher, 2014; Martinez-Prather and Vandiver, 2014)

Which is it? As the study was one that used a higher sample of girls than boys and also shared that many of those sending were forced.

Also the study states that adults were involved in some cases involving children. Why is it considered ok for an adult to do this in your mind?

However thankfully the study can be further examined as it states:

The study itself reports that 7/10 who reported having sent images of themselves as being scared and afraid and some as a result of coercion and blackmail. It also shared that many who received it felt the same way. Also the study reports that included in that data is multiple reports that someone else took nudes of them and shared them.

"Only 1 youth reported forwarding or posting" Which makes no sense at all.

The study itself fell short of what it intended. Intended 300 cell calls but did 45.

It also says:
"The AP-MTV Survey (2009) reported that 61 per cent of young people who admitted sexting said they felt pressured to do so on at least one occasion."

and:
"Indeed, for some girls involved in romantic 12 relationships, consenting to ‘unwanted’ self-produced sexual images is a type of ‘sexual compliance’ or an ‘undesirable price’ they have to pay to maintain a good relationship (Lippman and Campbell, 2014; Drouin and Tobin, 2014; Renfrow and Rollo, 2014)."

"There is some evidence that females who experience anxious attachment are more likely to consent to unwanted sexting out of fear of losing their partners (Drouin and Tobin, 2014)."

So thanks for that great study. I prefer to use studies that are not contradictory or include kids who are coerced as being perpetrators thank you.

KCSIE or the government sharing nudes and semi nudes document is a good source of information.

I will now get accused of hyper focusing on sexual abuse again for responding so will finish with saying "Other forms of abuse do exist" for those who like to pretend I ignore it when responding to comments.

Ah yes. Why bother trying to understand or define any of it? It's much easier to decide for yourself what constitutes sexual abuse, lump it all into one category, pull random statistics out of a hat, not bother with standardisation, muddle up your variables, chop and change your variables, ignore confounding variables, make hyperbolic claims without citations, embrace your biases, apply double standards, omit limitations and then provide your own conclusion and treat it as unequivocal fact.

Careful kitten, we aren’t supposed to understand “sexual abuse” as literally referring to sexual abuse 🤣

You're absolutely right! And i am sure Chelsea Gleason must have been one of them....her actions were so despicable and extreme.
I was mainly just responding to the OP's question in general about why women often put partners before their children in abusive relationships.
But this case is next level awful :(

This isn't actually categorised as child sexual abuse.

And research on this doesn't back up your argument unless you also want to claim that girls are sexually abusing boys at similar or possibly even higher rates:

Recent research findings suggest that females may be more likely to send self-produced sexual images than males (Mitchell et al.,2012; Reyns, Henson and Fisher, 2014; Martinez-Prather and Vandiver, 2014) whilst males may be more likely to receive sexts (Strassberg et al., 2013; Gordon-Messer et al., 2012).

https://www.pure.ed.ac.uk/ws/portalfiles/portal/21808282/FINAL_Adolescents_and_self_taken_sexual_images_revised2.pdf

Shows you misunderstand a lot - or take things quite literally. Not my issue. Nice deflection though. Also shows you lack understanding of words and phrases that can have multiple meanings.

Omg, this is like your personal definition of “day in and day out” all over again!

it really is you as jack russelling doesn't mean that at all. You now admit you lied. Thank you for admitting you got it wrong and lied.

So I didn't say anything about whistling, cat calling, following etc. You have just caught your own tail. Well, well, well!

Point proven.

No it doesn't at all, it means humping someone like a jack russell does on someone's leg.

As in when men rub their cocks against women standing in front of them.

You said “Jack Russelled” on the tube which means men acting like dogs- wolf whistles, catcalling, staring, dogging your heels (following), and making sexual comments.

There is only one liar here and it isn’t I.

They made them themselves - taking pictures of their own bodies.

You very clearly did say it was rare. Ah so now when I said it was common and you said no isn't that meant that is is common!

I clearly responded about the graph you chose to ignore my response about that. Yet again. It is obviously not within your capacity to understand basics.

I said someone else said that 99.3% of boys are victims as they said the data was equal. I think you should stop ignoring what I have said about it because of your bee in your bonnet and also stop lying about me. Maybe read the whole thread and you will see where I spoke about child abuse and abusers....you kind of missed it - purposely I reckon!

I agree. I don't know how you wouldn't know. Same as child sex abuse. How do these paedophiles get access to the children? I'm talking when it isn't the father carrying out the abuse.

Where did the male children get the images?

“You said sexual abuse is rare. It is not. You keep on bleating on that kids are not experiencing things and calling victims liars.”

Sorry but this is a pack of lies, I have never said any of that. You are misrepresenting how I stated that child sexual abuse is the rarest form of child abuse. It is. I can’t help it of you can’t comprehend thar “rarest form of” doesn’t mean flat out “rare”. I won’t attach the ONS bar graph again as it’s obviously not within your capacity to consider actual data.

Yes, I think you should at least include child abuse other than child sexual abuse when making grandiose unsourced assertions to the effect that “99.3% of boys” are not victims of child abuse especially on a thread where real children who have died from child abuse that wasn’t sexual are being discussed.

Mostly male children - 52% of child sex abusers are other children. Mostly males.

So you think these girls lie that they have been sent such images or what?

@schmeler Who is sending them the images?

Please quote me where I said about cat-calling, staring, propositions and following or else admit you lied.

I never mentioned cat calling or staring or propositions at all. That is a lie. Not once have I mentioned that. You are back-tracking now you got called out.

It is sexual abuse. Sorry you wish to minimise things. I have offered a source. You clearly haven't read around the subject if you do not know that data.

No you stated it WAS my view. Nope I am not starting my own thread. I responded to comments and you took offence and started with your own agenda for some reason and ignored their comments on the subject. Not sure why?

You are quite abhorrent to ignore abuse of children and to lie about me.

So you think these girls lie that they have been sent such images or what?

I have looked at it and at no point have I said that this is not the case. You said sexual abuse is rare. It is not. You keep on bleating on that kids are not experiencing things and calling victims liars. I also never said that I have ignored it, I have responded to questions about sexual abuse and comments relating to that.

Just because I responded to your claim that sexual abuse is rare doesn't mean I ignore the others I was responding to your comment about sexual abuse. If you notice then I have commented prior to yours about that but YOU ignored that for some reason. Why is that? Not suit your agenda? If you commented that physical abuse is rare I would comment on physical abuse but then you would cry that I was ignoring all others then when I did that, wouldn't you?

If you wish to have a discussion about each individual kind of abuse by all means crack on. You seem to have a real issue on someone responding to a comment and find debating a bit of a challenge. I am allowed to respond to one comment and that doesn't mean others are ignored. However you openly ignore victims by saying they are not experiencing it and their reports are not truthful.

Please show me where I said that it should be ignored? You are lying there or completely sick in suggesting that because the topic I was discussing was sexual abuse that I ignore the rest. That is wholly inappropriate and also quite defamatory and if that is what you think then I suggest you withdraw that statement.

Why the hell should I reply to someone on a thread? Oh because that is called debating. Do you not understand how that works. Still waiting for you to say the same to others but you will not. Not sure why?

So by your reckoning we have to talk about all kids of abuse in all comments or are labelled as ignoring them even if the discussion was not on about them?