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

[OutWithTheMule]

There has been another horrific child abuse death and I have noticed in the majority of these cases the mothers boyfriend has been abusing the child, and the mother is aware and allows it to happen, and usually protects them by trying to cover it up from the police after the fact.

In the awful case that has been in the news today the mother had only been with her boyfriend for 36 days. She allowed the abuse to continue because she didn't want him to leave her. How the fuck can you choose someone you have known 36 days over your own child!?

I just can't understand why these women choose their boyfriends over their children, if anyone laid a finger on my daughter I would flay them!! Even if you wouldn't physically intervene you would take your child and leave surely? If the boyfriend isn't the child's father they have no access to them if you just take them somewhere else. I know women are sometimes scared to leave abusive partners but often in these stories the partner is not abusing the mother, they are only abusing the child and the mother either passively allows it or sometimes joins in.

I understand that the fault lies with the boyfriends obviously, they are monsters and there is no excusing their actions, it's horrific. But it makes sense, violent men abuse children, it's straightforward as disgusting as it is. What I cannot understand for the life of me is why a mother would allow a boyfriend to harm their child or actively choose a boyfriend over their child. It just doesn't make any sense to me. Can anyone shed any light on these women's behaviour?

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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 :(

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

Oh look, another astonishing misrepresentation.

Why are people aggressive - they choose to be. It shows they have complete control over it. If it was genetic the wouldn't have control over it. Aggression is about control.

But that doesn't happen as you are trying to label all as abusers. ACEs are also not about having a miserable childhood at all. You can have ACEs and have a happy and perfectly happy childhood and visa versa. You can also have a very miserable childhood without ACEs. As human behaviour cannot be predicted. Also again it is suggesting that ACEs happen within the home which is not always the case.

You just said that those who have ACEs often abuse others - the policy locally to me in the past was to remove babies at birth because they are potential abusers based on their past. So if someone with ACEs often abuse others - surely they then run the risk of abusing the child which was the thought process behind it. Labelling them as abusers before they abuse. It also prevents abused kids from seeking help which is so wrong in my eyes. All kids who need help should get it but not all kids with ACEs need help as again this is not a prediction of their outcomes.

The ACE study is often not read by many of those and as the authors say: "the ACE score is neither a diagnostic tool nor is it predictive at the individual level."

They themselves say it cannot be used to predict the outcomes of individuals as we cannot predict human behaviour. They say it is wrong to use it in this way as it is harmful to label ppl with a label they do not need or which will prevent them, limit them or cause problems with them being successful in life.

Males choose to be abusive as do women. It isn't an innate thing to be abusive and again that is quite the claim that men are abusers by nature which they are not. Abusers abuse because of choice. They want to. They are enabled by society excusing their behaviour and attributing it to 'loss of control, genes and such like' instead of saying all perpetrators make a choice and show full control not lack of.

Ask yourself why abusers are aggressive only to certain people? If they can control it around their mates, their family, their mother, their boss, the bus driver etc and 'lose control' always with the same person then it isn't a loss of control at all. It shows complete control and choice.

I’m not even formulating a proper response to that as you are twisting what I say to suit yourself. I am not labelling all people with ACE’s as abusers. Think what you like and keep misrepresenting and misinterpreting things to suit what you want to believe if it makes you happy 😄

It's ironic that a poster who is apparently so clued up on abuse, and who is repeatedly accusing others of thinking abuse is ok, is in fact being abusive themselves by constantly gaslighting people to quite an alarming extent.

Children making indecent images and sharing indecent images of children is illegal. If a child takes a photo of their own body and shares it they are making indecent images of children and sharing indecent images of children which is illegal. Doesn't matter if it is their own body. It is illegal to make or distribute it. Quite flabbergasted that you think making and sharing images of children is acceptable if they do it themselves. Also sharing images to others is illegal and it is abuse to share indecent images of children.

No I haven't randomly quoted at all. There is a reference list and so I used that reference list to read the papers behind it. So yes it is about studies. I was quoting the studies that this was about. Clearly you saw one sentence and quoted it without reading the studies from the reference list. I read countless articles off that list and it met with interesting reading and quite something too!

Only one youth reported posting - doesn't make sense? So a study which says X is more likely to do A and B when only 1 child reports it and you say that is attributed to the whole population of the USA because one child did it? Really?

A study is a piece of research. Is this not researching previous studies? Or just listing them? Is a literature review studying previous literature or not?

I do not need educating thank you but I would prefer it if someone would read and research instead of googling and posting the first article that comes up and quoting random sentences when they haven't read the studies which it came from.

So can you explain the contradictions? You conveniently left those out.
Oh and here is a post about images with children from the NSPCC.

You are saying that they are likely to abuse and it often happens which they are not and it does not. They are less likely to abuse. You happen watched a video and without being critical of it or read the actual study of ACEs and know where the framework came from (it was stolen by the way) and then saying that all those with ACEs are potential abusers!

How about you stop labelling ppl as potential abusers because you failed to understand basic human trauma responses.

But your friend is a potential abuser is he not? He is more likely to abuse kids so how do you know he is not - because he says he is not?

He now has a predisposition to abuse and is male so by your reckoning cannot control his aggression. All adding up to labelling someone which I think is abhorrent. So your mate isn't an abuser, isn't a potential one as you know his genes and that it hasn't impacted on his brain development etc oddly enough but others are? Make it make sense!

Maybe watch that video back and be more critical of it.

Nope living is poverty is not about poor role models. So a family who work in MW jobs who survive wage to wage and who work their asses off to provide for the kids, show them love and care and support them are poor role models? I think you lack understanding of poverty and shockingly show your classism against those who struggle financially. Nope it doesn't cause parents to be harsh with punishments - again showing shocking classism. Being on the poverty line doesn't reflect how many hours you work. I work 100 hours a week. I am not on the poverty line nor am I an abuser or likely to abuse due to hours I work. I think your prejudice against those with little money is evident and the reason why those with money get away with abuse so often as they are excused - those with money can and do punish harshly. Also those who work in some high pressured jobs work extended hours - again showing a lack of understanding of jobs and pressure within the workplace.

It doesn't make logical sense that everyone will not become an abuser. Which is why I didn't say it. I said those with ACEs are less likely. I talked of those as a whole group in comparison with those without as a whole group. Basic comparisons. At no point did I said everyone who has ACEs will not abuse. In fact I actually said that some with ACEs will but most will not and that is down to choice not their experiences but the group as a whole are less likely than the group without. Not rocket science as data supports it.

I said people with ACE’s are more likely to abuse, I did not label them all abusers. I myself have ACE’s, have been severally emotionally abused as a child and have mental health issues as a result, I’m not an abuser, although I have unhealthy behaviours and attachment issues, but I’m very self aware after years of attempting to understand myself and I’m working on those areas that are less than perfect.

The point I’m making is that your experiences shape you, so obviously for a lot of people who have been abused will go on to be abusers themselves. It’s not that it’s not a choice for them, but more that they justify it or frame it is ‘not that bad’ because it’s been normalised to them. Hence, it’s often a multigenerational issue.

Many people WON’T go on to abuse, because their experiences turn them the other way and they don’t want others to experience the same as they did, but to claim with such certainty that people with ACEs are less likely to abuse is just nonsense. Abusers usually have a backstory, but that’s NOT the same as me excusing it. It is NEVER OKAY.

How is it a misrepresentation. The line being used was that abuse happens only to children and adults do not suffer abuse.

So crack on an explain what was meant by adults not suffering abuse as abuse if only for kids? I must be mistaken when someone said that abuse is only for kids and adults are not abused. By all means explain why adults do not suffer abuse or how I am wrong by responding to the comments that abuse happens only to children.

@schmeler

They are less likely to abuse

Any source for that claim? Especially considering the possible adverse effects of ACEs can be considered risk factors. Like more likely to be incarcerated or more likely to have addiction issues.

@schmeler Gaslighting people over and over is very unpleasant. I don't believe your posts are in good faith so I'm not going to engage with you any further.

We can conclude that people’s life experiences have absolutely no bearing on future behaviour whatsoever except if it’s positive 😄