|
CPL593H posted:That is a known phenomenon but I don't think that "most" is accurate. Huh, you're right. looking it up it seems like most child predators that are caught and prosecuted say they were abused, but a lot of them are lying. https://theconversation.com/child-sex-abuse-doesnt-create-paedophiles-60373 quote:Others debunk the theory. A 2001 study, for example, combined self-reports of childhood abuse histories with polygraph tests for child sex offenders.
|
# ? Sep 19, 2021 17:04 |
|
|
# ? Jun 8, 2024 07:35 |
|
I mean that said, polygraphs are easily fooled and unreliable and should not be taken as evidence of anything.
|
# ? Sep 19, 2021 18:01 |
|
HopperUK posted:I mean that said, polygraphs are easily fooled and unreliable and should not be taken as evidence of anything. They aren't saying the polygraph proved they were lying, they are saying after being interviewed under a polygraph they no longer claimed to have been molested themselves.
|
# ? Sep 19, 2021 18:03 |
|
Skwirl posted:They aren't saying the polygraph proved they were lying, they are saying after being interviewed under a polygraph they no longer claimed to have been molested themselves. Ah gotcha, I misread that a bit. Thanks.
|
# ? Sep 19, 2021 18:06 |
|
I think the reverse needs to be accounted for, though. Do people who suffer sexual abuse at a young age disproportionately become offenders?
|
# ? Sep 19, 2021 18:39 |
|
Phylodox posted:I think the reverse needs to be accounted for, though. Do people who suffer sexual abuse at a young age disproportionately become offenders? 30% claim to have suffered it after the polygraph interview and somewhere between 5 and 15 percent of kids are molested, so probably?
|
# ? Sep 19, 2021 18:58 |
|
Phylodox posted:I think the reverse needs to be accounted for, though. Do people who suffer sexual abuse at a young age disproportionately become offenders? I feel the links provided so far cover that, and the answer is "no". Sexual offenders seem to have childhood assault rates that are on par with the national average in the US. If you were more likely to commit assault after being assaulted, then I think the numbers would be higher than 30%. I'm not much of a statistician, however. This feels similar to people equating violent offenses to mental illness. Mental illness doesn't cause you to be violent, and a traumatic past doesn't make you more likely to cause trauma. I mentioned this in my last post, but the only time there seems to be a correlation between abused as a child and abusive as an adult are in extremely violent cases. Here's the book I've read about this in, btw: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/224552.Why_Does_He_Do_That_ Edit: Skwirl posted:30% claim to have suffered it after the polygraph interview and somewhere between 5 and 15 percent of kids are molested, so probably? It's 5-15% in one year, about 28% in their "lifetime" as a kid in the US. Edit again: According to this: https://victimsofcrime.org/child-sexual-abuse-statistics/#:~:text=During%20a%20one%2Dyear%20period,ages%20of%207%20and%2013. quote:During a one-year period in the U.S., 16% of youth ages 14 to 17 had been sexually victimized; catapede fucked around with this message at 19:10 on Sep 19, 2021 |
# ? Sep 19, 2021 19:06 |
|
Yeah, I misread the article I linked to. It ends with this notequote:Our current understanding of the victim-offender cycle in child sexual abuse comes from studies based on interviews with incarcerated sex offenders or those in treatment programs, or self-report measures. These are inherently unreliable methods, which fail to get to the bottom of a sex offender’s victimisation history.
|
# ? Sep 19, 2021 19:32 |
|
So not based on hard numbers, but just personal experience: Sexual abuse doesn't necessarily result in a sexual abuser, but it does seem more likely to result in an abuser, be it physical/emotional/psychological/etc. The opposite seems true too. I'm curious how those numbers would look if you widened the net a bit? (I mean, it would still be impossible to verify, but) Like picking an example from my experiences, it went from generation to generation as sexual abuser > emotional abuser > physical abuser > sexual abuser. My guess is that each person is latching onto whatever means of control they can most easily exploit. Of course, not excusing it. One of my parents was a cycle breaker, their siblings were not.
|
# ? Sep 19, 2021 21:12 |
|
Das Boo posted:So not based on hard numbers, but just personal experience: Sexual abuse doesn't necessarily result in a sexual abuser, but it does seem more likely to result in an abuser, be it physical/emotional/psychological/etc. The opposite seems true too. I'm curious how those numbers would look if you widened the net a bit? (I mean, it would still be impossible to verify, but) To add onto this, one thing that is prevalent among abusers is needing control. But yeah, as Skwirl pointed out, data regarding sexual assault is overall unreliable for the reasons listed. Personally, I think male sexual assault is extremely under-reported, for instance.
|
# ? Sep 19, 2021 23:10 |
|
The thing about Norm being a conservative talk show host in waiting thing is mostly accurate for two reasons 1) I distinctly remember him gushingly tweeting at Jordan Peterson for changing his life 2) He once said in a profile article that if people knew his personal beliefs his career would be dead. Only wrinkle is that as a rule, the Fox crowd are usually failed comedians who sucked. A bunch of their TV personalities tried stand-up first. Whereas Norm was pretty good at stand-up. Not that it excuses any of the foul poo poo. El Gallinero Gros fucked around with this message at 00:06 on Sep 20, 2021 |
# ? Sep 19, 2021 23:37 |
|
Only about 50% of incidences of childhood sexual abuse come from people with pedophilia (i.e. attraction to children). A lot of them, and I would say probably a lot more in the case of celebrities, come from abusers seeking easier targets, or those who just have the opportunity and abuse, often when they have other mental disorders. I wouldn't be surprised if pedophilia on its own probably leads to fewer cases than violent sexual tendencies do [this is speculation, for the obvious reason that only offenders get caught]. This study goes into some of the neurobiological factors involved, and points out a major flaw of the theory that sexual abuse leads to more abuse — most victims are female, but by far more perpetrators are male. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4478390/ [It's an NIH study, but nsfw as it contains drawn sketches of developing genitalia.]
|
# ? Sep 19, 2021 23:48 |
|
CPL593H posted:My advice is to not hang out with comedians after the show (except Ron Funches because he's a super nice laid back dude and if you like weed he can smoke an inhuman amount of it and will share it with you). Probably not the best thread for declarative "all parasocial relationships are bad except this one" considering he literally tweeted "Chris Hardwick has always been good to me and my friends" before Chloe Dykstra replied and he deleted it
|
# ? Sep 20, 2021 04:04 |
|
I understand that it may not be enough as an entire response, but isn't deleting a tweet like that fundamentally the right first step? Unless he went on to be dishonest about the situation or something, that sounds like he read what she said and realized he had made a bad call. I can see how it would be better to also publicly acknowledge why that happened or whatever, but tons of people have done the thing in his tweet and had far worse responses when called out.
|
# ? Sep 20, 2021 04:15 |
|
He just acts like it never happened and(like everyone else in that circle) continues to associate with Chris and appear on podcasts/etc. I'm just saying don't let other celebs/comics known shittiness blind you when it comes to your faves.
|
# ? Sep 20, 2021 04:20 |
|
Ok sorry, the continuing to associate with him and all that is the part that I was not aware of or thinking about. Because I kinda forgot how hard the Chris Hardwick stuff got disappeared.
|
# ? Sep 20, 2021 04:23 |
|
Martman posted:Because I kinda forgot how hard the Chris Hardwick stuff got disappeared. Yeah I'll freely admit it sticks in my craw but that Hearst Money has like a 150-year history of loving poo poo up
|
# ? Sep 20, 2021 04:27 |
|
As a possible future father, maybe someday, Chris Hardwick would never do anything untoward to a woman.
|
# ? Sep 20, 2021 05:25 |
|
"As a father to a daughter, brother to a sister, son to a mother-"
|
# ? Sep 20, 2021 05:34 |
|
John Oliver did a shout out to Norm at the Emmys tonight which was kinda disappointing.
|
# ? Sep 20, 2021 05:34 |
|
I don’t think the tweets are mainstream yet. I haven’t heard anyone talk about them besides here on sa
|
# ? Sep 20, 2021 06:59 |
|
Just wanted to point out - pages and pages about Dusk Till Dawn and the toe sucking scene and no one mentioned that long, deeply uncomfortable subplot in the first half of the movie about sexualizing a mentioned 14 year old.
|
# ? Sep 20, 2021 11:56 |
Mr.Chill posted:Just wanted to point out - pages and pages about Dusk Till Dawn and the toe sucking scene and no one mentioned that long, deeply uncomfortable subplot in the first half of the movie about sexualizing a mentioned 14 year old.
|
|
# ? Sep 20, 2021 12:19 |
|
I've seen From Dusk Til Dawn a few times and I don't remember Juliette Lewis's character ever being given an age. I just assumed she was late teens. Which doesn't make Richie any less creepy but that's the whole point of his character.
|
# ? Sep 20, 2021 15:02 |
|
He literally brutally murders a Texas ranger, a liquor store clerks, and an innocent woman for no reason in the first 20 minutes, he’s literally a deranged psychopath. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fFIFOMzyg8I
|
# ? Sep 20, 2021 15:54 |
|
CelticPredator posted:I don’t think the tweets are mainstream yet. I haven’t heard anyone talk about them besides here on sa Yeah the Norm stuff has been around for a bit but it's never gotten an ignition. I first heard about it during the Barr and CK defense.
|
# ? Sep 20, 2021 18:34 |
|
Mob posted:Probably not the best thread for declarative "all parasocial relationships are bad except this one" considering he literally tweeted "Chris Hardwick has always been good to me and my friends" before Chloe Dykstra replied and he deleted it Did you mean Robert Kelly or Ron Funches? I know Robert Kelly is a Chris Hardwick defender because he said something about that to someone else that night. Ron Funches would be news. I don't go on or pay attention to Twitter because it's a cesspool.
|
# ? Sep 21, 2021 01:38 |
|
CPL593H posted:Did you mean Robert Kelly or Ron Funches? I know Robert Kelly is a Chris Hardwick defender because he said something about that to someone else that night. Ron Funches would be news. I don't go on or pay attention to Twitter because it's a cesspool. Here's Chloe Dykstra replying to the now-deleted tweet. https://twitter.com/skydart/status/1082803281728925696
|
# ? Sep 21, 2021 02:13 |
|
https://twitter.com/thedailybeast/status/1440716841043726336
|
# ? Sep 22, 2021 18:19 |
|
Mr.Chill posted:Just wanted to point out - pages and pages about Dusk Till Dawn and the toe sucking scene and no one mentioned that long, deeply uncomfortable subplot in the first half of the movie about sexualizing a mentioned 14 year old. She isn't 14, I'm not even sure if she's a teen. The brother is supposed to be younger than her so what's he, like 10? It's also played as creepy and it's clear that he's a gross character. He brutalized the woman at the start.
|
# ? Sep 22, 2021 20:34 |
|
Yeah Quentin Tarantino's character is not supposed to be sympathetic in any way.
|
# ? Sep 22, 2021 20:38 |
|
I thought she was supposed to be underage because of Clooneys final words to her?
|
# ? Sep 22, 2021 20:40 |
|
She's definitely underage.
|
# ? Sep 22, 2021 20:45 |
|
Skwirl posted:Yeah Quentin Tarantino's character is not supposed to be sympathetic in any way. If Tarantino didn’t want the audience to agree with or sympathize with that character then why play him in a film? Why is he featured on the poster? Why write a character like that at all? /s
|
# ? Sep 22, 2021 22:15 |
|
Tarantino does also introduce the child actress with a foot shot in Once Upon... so I don't know how 100% necessary it is to give him the benefit of the doubt
|
# ? Sep 22, 2021 22:47 |
|
Skwirl posted:Yeah Quentin Tarantino's character is not supposed to be sympathetic in any way. Yeah, for real. Some people in this thread really need to learn the difference between portrayal and endorsement. Steven Spielberg once made a movie about the holocaust, in which Ralph Fiennes played a nazi. Somebody call Nuremburg because we got another two that need to go on trial, post haste!
|
# ? Sep 22, 2021 23:23 |
|
#NotMySteven
|
# ? Sep 22, 2021 23:24 |
|
Ok Comboomer posted:If Tarantino didn’t want the audience to agree with or sympathize with that character then why play him in a film? Why is he featured on the poster? Why write a character like that at all? /s this is basically one step away from the "discussion is endorsement" sometimes in fiction characters are mean, brutal, abusive, and unsympathetic. The alternative is to abolish any fictional representation of bad people.
|
# ? Sep 22, 2021 23:28 |
|
pentyne posted:this is basically one step away from the "discussion is endorsement" I'm pretty sure that was their point.
|
# ? Sep 22, 2021 23:33 |
|
|
# ? Jun 8, 2024 07:35 |
|
pentyne posted:this is basically one step away from the "discussion is endorsement" I have spoken, in real life, to someone who said "it's time to tell new stories that aren't about horrible old men in the past".
|
# ? Sep 23, 2021 01:53 |