New study: Millions of men ‘would xesually abuse children if secrecy was assured’ — The Times

[ElatedShark]

New study: Millions of men ‘would xesually abuse children if secrecy was assured’ — The Times.

A new study has revealed a shocking proportion of Australian men would abuse children “if no one found out”.

The research, conducted by the University of New South Wales, found “concerning” patterns, including that one in six Australian men said they had feelings for children under the age of 18, with 48 per cent of those answering being aged over 54.

One in 15 men questioned admitted they would have xesual contact with a child under the age of 14 if “no one found out”, while one in 25 said the same about children under 10.

The odds of a respondent saying they would have had xes with someone under the age of 18 was 10 times higher if they were aged over 65.

The survey, which questioned over 1900 men aged between 18 and 65 years old, is the world’s largest child sexual abuse perpetration prevention survey of its kind.

The study was welcomed by those who say that the common nature of xesual violence against women needs to be studied at the perpetrator level as well as with victims.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/millions-of-men-would-sexually-abuse-children-if-secrecy-was-sure-ncf9lx5v7

AIBU to be find it disturbing that these were the men only willing to admit it and its probably alot higher??

Reminds me of that red*it thread about men getting aroused changing their daughters diapers or that other study that showed men would happily commit rape if they were assured to never be revealed/caught.

What can we as women/parents/men that don't fall into the above statistics do to combat this ? How can we ensure our sons are not thinking these thoughts are ok?

No, there is no excuse for it other than power over someone smaller and weaker. Biologically, as the Japanese soldiers knew in WW2, pre-pubescent girls cannot get pregnant, so they made "comfort stations" where they'd send their soldiers to rape the local girls and boys. No messy pregnancies and soldiers wondering if they have offspring. Far easier to control and cheaper to feed. It's about ease for the man is all, it isn't biologically driven as children are not fertile which is presumably the end thought of that "drive".

Sadly I agree with this. Men on a whole are so fucking entitled.

My FIL came to our country to stay with us for a month last year. Seeing him salivating over young teenagers really made me aware how I couldn’t leave him with my teenage daughters. When we drove past young girls walking, he’d stare. They couldn’t have been more than 14/15 🤢

And just looking back. When I was about 15, I remember the amount of middle aged men who’d catcall me or offer me lifts. Britney Spears in her school uniform 🤢 my school boyfriend told me how when he was on the school bus driving passed me, the bus driver said “cooorrrr look at the legs on that” about me to loads of the KIDS on the bus. I was 12!!!! Builders on building sites used to whistle at me….when I was 13!!! Jokes among men about girl guides selling cookies door to door 🤢 or visiting a friends house and being told at a later date that their dad thinks I’m pretty or that I have a nice in …as a young teenager. I’m 38 - this wasn’t that long ago.

Many of us have the opportunity to steal or commit other crimes and don't do it. Most people's behaviour isn't constrained by external rules, but by the fact that they have a social conscience.

What is a "social conscience"? And how does it exist outside of external written and unwritten rules?

These days, yes. But it's only relatively recently that babies' heads are so large and women's hips haven't evolved to keep up. When heads were smaller the hip size wouldn't have mattered so much.

That’s interesting. Please would you send some links to the research about historic babies’ heads to mothers’ hips ratios?

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/04/150422104244.htm

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8518115/#:~:text=ABSTRACT,dimensions%20required%20for%20bipedal%20locomotion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obstetrical_dilemma

There's some debate around it, but I don't suppose we'll ever know for sure.

It means you have in internal locus of control, conscience wise, as opposed to an external one. You behave according to an internal morality - I don't believe in stealing or killing people - rather than simply worrying about the consequences of being caught.

Hmmm…everyone talking about the fact that they don’t commit crimes because it’s wrong rather than fear of getting caught - you only have to look at any society that descends into lawlessness (civil war, hunger, poverty, riots etc) to realise that this way of thinking changes substantially. It’s a privilege of living in a wealthy safe society that we can think like that. I also don’t commit crimes due to a personal sense of morality. But if we were in a situation like Sudan or Gaza (or many others) are right now? Who knows what any of us would do to survive, or to take revenge on those who have hurt our children/loved ones.

Currently bottle feeding my baby daughter in a park and every time I look up, the guy opposite is looking at me and he doesn’t stop when I catch his eye. But the reason I’m writing is because a school girl with a short skirt on and sheer tights just walked past him and his eyes were transfixed on her. I think his head actually moved. She was about 14.

Yuk.

I love having a daughter but I find it just as daunting as the day I found out I was having one.

Different point, these men are saying they want to and would if they wouldn’t get caught.

Very different to the question of would you steal to feed your starving child or would you kill to protect your family?
Those are situations you don’t want to be in and would only do as a matter of survival.

@ElatedShark why are you continually saying "xesual" ? I can't even work out how to pronounce that! Are you thinking that's a real word? 🤔

There are SO many men like that. I’m convinced the sexual abuse of young girls was common all over this country until very recently. The Saville exposure didn’t shock me at all. He was just an extreme example. This is why I believe we should constantly talk about it. Abusers thrive on shame and secrecy and embarrassment. I would urge anyone who was abused in the past to expose the grandfather or stepfather or stepbrother or whoever it was. Every time some scumbag is arrested for historic abuse, it makes other scumbags think twice.

I wrote in another post about a friend whose mother had lots of different boyfriends when my friend was a young girl (10-16). She said almost all of them either abused her or tried it on. This was back in the ‘70s, when people didn’t talk about this stuff. I bet that kind of thing happened all the time, but girls kept it to themselves. The police probably weren’t interested. And in any case, how could you prove it? Until very recently, young people, especially from poor backgrounds, were pretty much ignored.

I would like to see a thorough investigation into sexual abuse in children’s homes in the U.K. as well, as far back as there are living witnesses. I’ve a nasty feeling it was absolutely rife in orphanages in this country until well into the 1980s.

Thank you for those links. I have to wait to read them later but appreciate you sending them.

I think I disagree in that if babies used to have smaller heads, at that time girls/women would have most likely been smaller ( and their hips smaller) too. Their (smaller) hips would have still been too undeveloped at the stage of early puberty for the smaller headed babies.

@Hartley99 I’m convinced the sexual abuse of young girls was common all over this country until very recently

Can I ask why you don’t think it’s common now? What makes you think there’s been a change?

My gut feeling is that it’s less common than it was in, say, the 1970s. Young people are far more aware these days. They know they have rights, and they know that certain behaviours are unacceptable. The adults in their life (teachers especially) are also more aware. And they know that if a child tells them they’re being abused, and they don’t report it, they could be in serious trouble. The police also feel more pressured to act. Abusers themselves are more wary, I should think. They know there is a chance the child will complain, and that if they do, they are more likely to be believed - far more likely than 40 years ago.

Imagine a 12-year-old girl in 1970 who is being abused by her stepfather. First of all, there is no internet, so she can’t find information or talk to other people. Second, children are very much under the thumb of adults. Today, children feel empowered enough to complain about adult behaviour. In 1970, kids were still being smacked and slapped by their teachers. Also, such a girl wouldn’t have the language for what was being done to her. We live in a therapy culture. We constantly hear words like “boundaries” and “molestation” and so on. Kids pick up on this. You didn’t hear that kind of talk back then.

More generally, the culture has changed. The sexual abuse of young girls was laughed off by many people. Others might not have approved, but they sort of accepted it. I think there was a widespread apathy - a feeling that, yes it was unpleasant, but you couldn’t stop it.

Once my friend (we are early 30s) asked, "do you think as you get older the age of people you fancy keeps getting older? Eventually do 70 year olds look hot or does it stop? When does it stop?" and the men at the table had no idea what we are talking about as apparently as they get older the "age they fancy" range stays the same.

I think most men would happily have sex with a 16 year old which makes me think the only thing stopping them having sex with a 14/15 year old is the law and therefore they'd presumably have no issue with that if they weren't caught. At that point I don't know how far you can take it but probably further than I'd like to imagine.

Personally I cannot imagine being sexually attracted to a 16 year old boy. They say you know you're old when policemen start looking really young - and they do. When I was a teenager, all of the "popular girls" looked so cool and I wanted to be as attractive as them. Now when I walk past secondary schools the teenagers look like kids to me. Not in an offensive way - it's that as I get older they're further apart and their faces look so young.

Then there's talking to them - while there are lots of perfectly pleasant teenagers, I definitely don't want to have sex with any of them and when I speak with them I 100% feel a very different generation to them. I don't feel in any way on the same level as them and there are no 16 year olds "mature" enough that I want to hang around with them in a friendship or relationship context.

I can likely notice 16 year old boys who as a teenager I would have fancied but I feel as sexually attracted to them now as I do an alligator. I really genuinely don't have any desire to have sex with them. Sometimes I have the urge to tell them not to walk so closely to the road.

I'm only in my 30s. Most of people of my age have younger kids but I still see teenagers more like they could be my children more than they could be my partner.

As a teenager myself I was sexually attracted to them but as I've got older my "fanciable age range" has gone up too.

If this doesn't happen to men, I find it quite concerning. Because what are the chances that their "fanciable age range" went up just until the bottom was 16 (convenient) and stopped?

I do have a concern that, if the range always stayed the same, and they start finding women sexually attractive at what? 10? 11? 12? Does that mean they still do? I really hope it's not the case.

I have heard enough men say "well it's not his fault she said she was 16 and she looked older" that the under 14s stat doesn't surprise me.

The under 10s one does and it's quite frightening. It's not that 1 in 25 men in this study are sexually attracted to prepubescent children. It's 1 in 25 who would actually sexually assault a child (as they cannot consent) if they weren't to be found out. In fact, it's 1 in 25 who are willing to admit to this!

I find this quite alarming. Surely most humans have morals and even if you were attracted to a child you wouldn't actually go through with hurting them as you'd understand that they are not able to consent and you (hopefully) do not want to do that without consent. So if 1 in 25 admit to being willing to sexually assault children if they wouldn't get caught, how many more don't admit it? And how many more wouldn't do anything but are still attracted? Obviously thoughts are not crimes but it's a scary world is a large number of men are fantasising about small children.

I wasn't a particularly attractive teenage girl and I didn't get the wolf whistles or comments in the street at school. But once I turned 15/16 I grew into myself and got either harassed or assaulted by men the age of my dad repeatedly.

No matter what the law says, I don't think a 16 year old can equally navigate a relationship with a 50 year old man. They are at completely different life stages and there is an inbuilt power imbalance. I find men who do this dangerous and gross. No matter what "biology" bullshit they come out with, the fact is that after 5 minutes with an average 16 year old (probably younger than their own children), it should spark a protective feeling, not an urge to use her as something to fuck.

I would guess that 99% of men having sex with 16/17 year olds would happily have younger if there were no consequences.

Also in response to some previous posts I do not only avoid murdering because I might get caught.

There is not a single person I've ever actually wanted to murder. I've really disliked people and thought that I hope they die (although in hindsight I don't actually believe that either and if I could press a button to do it I wouldn't. If I could press a button to stop it I would. I really hate this person and want nothing to do with them but I also don't want them to die).

And then actual murder? Even if I could imagine a lot of people sincerely hoping for another persons death, can I imagine them actually going through with killing somebody? The idea that I'd actually cause a persons death with my own two hands is unthinkable.

It's completely morally abhorrent to me. The only situation I could imagine murder is eg to protect my family or in revenge for someone doing something awful to my child.

So yes there may be some situations we would all murder. But rape? And raping children? There is no situation on Earth I can imagine where I'd get the urge, let alone go through with, sexually assaulting a child.

I feel like the point is being missed when people say "well we all have urges to steal and kill and in certain situations we would all do so but it doesn't matter because society keeps us in check."

I deny that we are all murderous inside. Stealing more-so and I would probably steal if guaranteed no consequences. However for the sake of argument let's say that we would all murder if we wouldn't get caught.

The percentage of women who want to have sex with children is (I am guessing) almost 0. Very very few anyway.

Are we just accepting that a large number of men have the urge to rape children but we should be fine with it because the threat of the law keeps them in line? This is horrifying.

The percentage of women who want to have sex with children is (I am guessing) almost 0. Very very few anyway.

I would agree with you on the whole but did you read what happened to Princess Diana’s brother at school age 12, at the hands of a female? And he was not the only one there. Then in ‘Experience’ by Martin Amis, he describes how their au pair had sex with his 12 year old brother.

There are also accounts in the news from time to time of female teachers going after a young male pupil.

I agree @yamsy I'm horrified that so many men have this urge. Whether they act on it or not, it's so depressing that the urge is even there. 😪

I'm not shocked by this even remotely. Whilst not sexualities which should be tolerated or allowed in civilised society, paedophilia, hebephilia and ephebophilia are all definite sexualities (or, if you want to be picky, paraphilias). Chronophilia are various forms of sexual interest in people dependent on their age range and in a famous study 50% of men asked were attracted to a group of girls aged between 12 and 20, with 14-15 being the peak age that the girls were considered to be attractive.

Doesn't make it right here in our society, but it's a thing and not a rare thing.

I think it is more common than people realise. Alot of the boys would not see it as the assault that it is though.

That’s what Charles Spencer said - that men who heard of it later would give him the thumbs up. But he said being made sexual that young, before he was ready, and emotionally ready too, had a profound affect over the course of his life.

We can't say women never sexually abuse children. I know a guy personally who was sexually abused by his mother. There was that female nursery worker a while back who was part of a paedophile ring. Then there were the women who gave/offered their babies to Ian Watkins, which just defies belief.

Yes I absolutely agree it's a small percentage of women compared to men. But I think its also important to acknowledge for the victims sakes. Its a small percentage, but a small percentage of a great number, so still significant.

Not surprised in a society where pubic hair is seen as an abomination because men want their partners genitals to look like those of little girls.