Police uncovering 'epidemic of child abuse' in 1970s and 80s

I think before the onset of puberty the numbers are similar but as the body starts to develop the ratio changes to be mostly girls.

True paedophiles often don't differentiate between boys and girls in terms of sexual interest, and by definition they are interested pre-puberty. The physical differences are not that significant at that age. If they are also attracted post-pubertal kids that's not part of their paedophilia and it usually is specific by sex.

But there are also people who abuse minors who are in puberty or sometimes even finished if you are talking about 15 or 16 year olds, that's usually not an abnormal sexual orientation at work, it's more about lack of boundaries, desire to control, and that sort of thing. Those people are typically attracted to either males or females like any other adult.

It’s also worth remembering that these abusers largely don’t just potter around aimlessly waiting for opportunities to arise.

They are incredibly motivated, focused, persistent and in many cases intelligent, sociable and entirely convincing as lovely normal people.

I can’t really get on board with the continual head shaking disbelief when respected doctors or other professionals at the top of their field are found to be abusing children. If anything it is entirely expected that predators should be found in large numbers in positions of power, trust and influence.

See charities, children’s organisations, healthcare, coaching, schools etc

And the law has changed. Prior to 2003, there was no offence of 'sexual activity with a child.' Anything short of full intercourse was a grey area that was in practice never going to be prosecuted.

Topless sixteen year olds on Page 3, and sometimes modestly posed topless 14 and 15 year olds was also fine and dandy.

My understanding is not that there was more abuse then, but that it was not recognised. As the wife upthread said, rock stars were interviewed with their underage girlfriends. It was acceptable in a way that by and large it no longer is.

Teenage girls pestered by men in their thirties- normal.
15 year olds with boyfriends of 28- cool.
15 year olds groomed by married men, babysitters seduced on the way home... the girl was viewed as a Lolita.

Younger children being told they are lucky uncle jim takes them out fishing every Saturday. Don't be so ungrateful.

A mixture of genuine innocence, and a twisted public narrative about sexual behaviour.

And even today:
Scotland's finance secretary has quit hours before delivering his budget amid reports that he messaged a 16-year-old boy on social media. The Scottish Sun said that Derek Mackay contacted the boy over a six-month period, and told him that he was "cute"...and sent about 270 messages on Instagram and through Facebook.

It was the world we grew up in. The word of a child against an adult was automatically discounted. It was what Lord Denning would have called an 'appalling vista.'

Boys. Girls. The victms were all victims. It's not a competition.

As others have said, it is endemic. I think the headline is pretty misleading actually, I very much doubt that somehow since the eighties numbers have dropped.

Think about the lifelong impact of child sexual abuse, and then think about the fact that the majority of victims are girls, and then think about how few women are in positions of power. The fact that girl children being molested and raped is so common isn't the only reason so few of us are able to make it into positions of power, but it's part of the overall picture.

This.

A friend of a friend took her life in her 30s after being abused as a child. She struggled on trying to deal with it for her early adult life but just couldn't. All her family members were badly affected as was my friend.

The evil effects of child abuse ripple outwards and affect not only individual lives but the whole of society.

I find it utterly disgusting that the men who do this and those who apologise for them aren't held to account. I do think some crimes are so awful that they should suffer the consequences for the rest of their lives (after all, their victims suffer for the rest of their lives) and that others should know about their convictions. In order to safeguard their kids.

We need more sunlight on the evil that is child abuse - but instead we have twitter welcoming MAPs ('minor attracted persons = paedophiles) and police forces ignoring and covering up child abuse crimes because they don't want to be seen as racist.

On the question of whether boys or girls are more likely to be abused, I agree that huge numbers of boys have been abused in boarding schools, children's homes and so on, so it's difficult to tell, but I think on balance, more girls will have been abused simply because most men are heterosexual.

I think before the onset of puberty the numbers are similar but as the body starts to develop the ratio changes to be mostly girls.

Statistically there are more girl victims than boys, but that is not to belittle the boy victims.

Child abuse is rife. Child abuse is covered up.

Eight years ago, I found out that there is, in fact, a paedophile on every corner.

My friend's (not so D)H was charged and convicted of child abuse offences online, which included stuff along the lines of Ian Watkins fantasies. It was shocking and stomach-turning stuff that they found on his computer - including the sexual torture of pre-verbal toddlers and babies. Finding out that someone you knew and trusted did that - and that he had spent time with my own children - changes you as a person. I now trust very, very few people (men!) to be alone with my children.

In the course of looking at his case as it went to court, I found that our next-door-but-one neighbour in our old house had been convicted and imprisoned over child abuse indecent images and bestiality, and something awful involving real-life horses.

At the same time I had a call from an old friend who lived in a different town - her neighbour across the road had just been caught with indecent images of children.

The ones the police catch are only the tip of the iceberg.

There's one on every corner. I firmly believe that now. And they find each other on the internet now - something they couldn't do in the 70s.

the fact that the majority of victims are girls,

Not sure this is true...there are very many cases of child abuse in a number of prominent public schools in the UK in the 1970s through to 1990s that are mainly men abusing boys and I'm on forums where you can see the lifelong impact that has on the boys.

Also think about the football coaching scandals, that's not girls either.

The biggest problem is the institutional cover-ups that try to offload the culprit quietly without damaging the reputation of the institution. We see that time and again, even recently with the Ian Paterson scandal.

But I do agree that most of the perpetrators are male.

I'm just old enough to remember the 70s (born in 73) and it's not like this stuff was hidden. It was pretty much right out in the open from what I can remember

Agreed.

One of the powerful scenes in Unforgotten Series 2 was when Tessa, the police officer wife of a child rapist, who had known but tried to maintain she hadn't, broke down and said of the 80s: [it was an era when] a rock star could go on telly and be interviewed about his underage girlfriend without getting arrested. We all bought into that – until we didn’t.

there is an actual massive problem of men sexually abusing women and children and it just goes on and on and on

Yes. Like you say, endemic. There are a lot of men about.

I agree, langcleg, and prevalence studies regarding sexual abuse are by nature incredibly problematic. Convictions arguably tell us very little due to difficulties in reporting, and difficulties securing convictions. In my work I am often surprised by the numbers of women and children as abusers I come across - this is not statistical either of course, but its only been acknowledged as possible in recent years by professionals, let alone the general public. All that said I agree in general about the priority being to target the biggest area of risk - to my knowledge male family members and people known to the child. How to reduce that risk is another issue with lots of disagreement.

One of the problems we have Merename is we have no idea of the numbers of women convicted of abuse as the statistics are completely bolloxed up.

However when statistics were more reliable % were extremely low compared to numbers of male predators (obviously now comes the tedious caveat that I'm not generalising namalt) so whilst not wanting to minimise anyone's experience focussing more of your risk reduction efforts on the biggest risk is most effective.

I agree with you, about child sexual abuse being endemic and far more prevalent than people realise. Myself and DH both work in the field and I think will always be incredibly wary about where our children go and whom they are in contact with. However, increasing incidences of women as sexual abusers, and peer abuse by young people, are also of huge concern. I am not trying to minimise males being the largest proportionate group of abusers, however the issue is more complicated than that and targeting our concern at men only can cause us to miss risks, and alienate those who have been abused by women or young people.

It’s also horrifying thinking of how the internet enables communities of paedophiles now in a way that could never have been achieved in the 70s. I think one gap is that we do not have any mainstream services akin to those in some European countries for people who have sexual attraction to children and want to seek help.

Unfortunately I think women who have been lucky enough to get into positions of power have often not experienced the type of inequality other women have and so they don't see the bigger picture.

Think about the lifelong impact of child sexual abuse, and then think about the fact that the majority of victims are girls, and then think about how few women are in positions of power. The fact that girl children being molested and raped is so common isn't the only reason so few of us are able to make it into positions of power, but it's part of the overall picture. The lifelong damage done to women is a feature, not a bug, from a cynical perspective.

I'm just old enough to remember the 70s (born in 73) and it's not like this stuff was hidden. It was pretty much right out in the open from what I can remember. Not the organized stuff regarding children in care, but in terms of men creeping on little girls? Pretty much right out in the open, and not much effort made to protect the kids at all. "Normalised", in fact.

I don't know.

It's exhausting

Unfortunately I think women who have been lucky enough to get into positions of power have often not experienced the type of inequality other women have and so they don't see the bigger picture.