They did it because they could/ they do it because they can

[SolitaryWeasel]

The British island haunted by years of violence, abuse and rape

https://www.thetimes.com/article/d3f3aada-7cc5-4bce-abe4-2920a102b86c?shareToken=1c27349be534f30fee3635aabf027e81
I hope the above share token works.

Pitcairn/UK grooming gangs/church scandals/ abusers in schools/ abusers in the entertainment industry. They did it because they could/ they do it because they can, because people turn a blind eye until forced to look.

This is why opening up sex-protected spaces where females and children may be vulnerable to any man who identifies as a woman is such a stupid, stupid, stupid, STUPID idea (Nicola Sturgeon/MaggieChapman do you hear me, you fatuous, shameless, idiots?).

NAMLT etc but predators exist and when given the opportunity to abuse women and children a subset of men will always take advantage of that opportunity. Those poor, poor generations of Pitcairn girls.

I remember reading about this when the story first broke. One of the victims who'd be grabbed and raped when she was just walking somewhere, she was eleven.

In the above article, the bit about the older man who'd just raped the child trying to get the boys to rape her too. Probably how he got initiated into their culture of rape, just doing his bit to pass it along to the younger generation.

It's so disheartening to see yet more evidence that a large proportion of men will rape women and girls if they think they can get away with it.

It's a dismal history with little sign that there are concerted social efforts to reduce it and work towards eradicating it.

It is so depressing. All those men did indeed do it because they could. Those poor girls.

"They did it because they could" meaning they physically could. They had the muscle power. ..............[linebreaks not working].............But that's not how societies actually work. The guys who ran the place: they were probably older. Any fit 25 year old could have smashed them to hash. The young uns don't. Why not? Presumably they physically could. But they don't. .......................Because if they harmed the chiefs (whatever the top dogs call themselves), the whole society would come down on them. They might even get executed. Might doesn't make right in that case because chiefs count. Women don't. Women don't count not only - or even primarily - because of physical might. It's because of social rules. The protection is socially conferred or taken away. Men don't do this stuff because they can. They do it because it's allowed.

I'd like to know how many, did all the men/boys take part? I hope some refused. Give us hope!

They do it because it’s allowed

but also, perhaps, because if most of the (most senior) adult men rape girls, it would be surprising if the boys didn’t assume that that was how men behave. Most boys want to demonstrate that they’re men…..

Effectively, society encourages it :(

“Men don’t do this stuff because they can. They do it because it is allowed.” Well exactly, quixote9. That is my point. I’m not just referring to Pitcairn but to the seemingly endless litany of abusive men taking advantage of any opportunity they are given. Add the horrifying mass rape of Gisèle Pelicot to the list of Pitcairn/UK grooming gangs/church scandals/ abusers in schools/ abusers in the entertainment industry.

And now we have our society, our politicians (in particular the Scottish Government), our institutions, the civil service, charities, media all repeatedly telling men that they don’t need to respect women’s boundaries. Repeatedly telling women that their rights to dignity, safety and privacy are much less important than a man’s desires.

The results are inevitable and the majority of our politicians and those in the mainstream media don’t care.

Exactly.
🎯

Our only hope is bringing up boys who abhor rape and violence against women. The day the Gisele Pelicot trial ended I happened to be on the phone with one of my adult sons. He was horrified by the case. I didn't bring it up, he did though, he must have known I'd be interested. It did my heart good to hear his outrage. No way he's going to ignore consent. It's very important to him

I'm going to say the following until the day I die:-

Consent is what happens between 2 people that like and respect each other.

Rape is an act of violence - even if you can't see the injury on the outside, it's there.

Let's stop putting the two words in the same sentence.

Is it just 'allowed' or is it actually encouraged, supported, and facilitated?

As others here note, the abuse of women is often part of a status game played among men.

Thanks for posting, OP. I can't face the article right now but will read later.

Yes. At best, it's allowed. There's definitely a whole background roar of too many men wanting to move up a step by standing on women's necks.