Posts Tagged ‘Child sexual abuse’

End Child Sexual Abuse Foundation

Image via Wikipedia

We know that there are definitional biases and gender discrepancies when it comes to recognizing,and diagnosing child abuse. But emerging research and cohort studies are lifting a twenty year embargo against discussing gender and race in re-examining both gender of perpetrators, and redefining ‘what is sexual abuse.’

For instance, it is common to examine girls for every range of possibility of sexual abuse, but no special procedures that differentiate sexual abuse of boys that was perpetrated by specifically women– like saliva analysis, or  bruising caused by objects, or a child’s exposure to other forms of female behavior that would qualify as sexual abuse.

And boys are less likely to be asked if women, girls, mothers, aunts, and/or female caretakers physically or sexually abused them.

It is also certain more often than not, that any boy who has been sexually abused by a female is less likely to self-report that fact, and by inference of all data, it is  more likely that any hospital visit will have a female caretaker present, which can intimidate self reporting of sexual and physical abuse.

It is well known that abuse victims cannot and will not expose their abuser if the abuser is standing next to them. And most abusers of children have primary custodial control of the child, meaning the child is wholly stifled at knowing how to express the abuse they have endured.

But some are asking another question: does race get in the way of boys reporting their sexual abuse at large, and specifically their sexual abuse by women? I think it does, and I am not alone–anymore..

“Child maltreatment is a significant problem within US society, and minority children have higher rates of substantiated maltreatment than do white children. However, it is unclear whether minority children are abused more frequently than whites or whether their cases are more likely to be reported. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether there are racial differences in the evaluation and Child Protective Services (CPS) reporting of young children hospitalized for fractures.”

While it is likely that historic institutionalized racism is a factor that can explain higher diagnostic success of detecting abuse in black children, it is also a possibility that observer bias ( nurses, doctors, emergency room personell) gets in the way, because white women are seldom if ever suspects–ever–in crime.

Other minority groups have their own profile issues to contend with, but beyond the biased definitional basis for ‘what is abuse,’ beyond the stereotype of male, race is a factor.

It’s not necessarily that black people abuse their children at any higher rates than white people, but rather that suspects, and suspicions of child abuse perpetrated by white people are often downplayed because of racial profiling. Whites are always “less suspect”–and white women in particular–who are the primary caretakers of children–are almost never suspected of any crimes, much less child abuse.

Yet men of all races are constantly primary suspects. They even have a gendered epithet that applies to this profile: the boogieMAN.

I suspect that it’s time to re-visit the race and child abuse question, and redefine ‘what is a suspect,’ for the sake of the children, and the future.

Note to self: put this on the white female privilege checklist.

Cover of "Mercy"

Cover of Mercy

Andrea Dworkin‘s Fiction 101: “Lie, for effect.”

The roots of the feminist ‘men are doormats’ dilemma, and why nice guys lose, finally, and always, in feminist theory. They can’t help  themselves–literally! They are dependent upon female narratives.

UPDATE: As predicted, DSK was found innocent and absolved of any wrong doing in this matter, and currently, Naffisatou Diallo is ‘seeking a confrontation’ to avoid being deported, and to vindicate her untenable position.

I am trying to track down this odd obscure detail about Andrea Dworkin, which is probably going to be harder than explaining why the wage gap between men and women is either a  clever falsehood, or a mis-representation of women’s choices.

And even harder than trying to explain why hiding the identity of Dominique Strauss-Kahn‘s rape-accuser, Nafisatou Diallo, is the western version of ‘putting a veil on women.’

Here is Naffisatou Diallo below– false rape accuser, and drug money courier. Her false accusation against Dominique Strauss Kahn could throw the French presidential election.

Tolerating One Lie, Leads to Generations of More Lies: Naffisatou Diallo, false rape accuser

But back to obscure facts for a minute. It seems that John Preston, gay activist, author, and founder of the now-defunct Gay House, Inc. in Minneapolis, remembers Andrea Dworkin being in Minneapolis sometime in 1971.

She claimed she was in Amsterdam at the time as a “battered wife.”

I haven’t the time or the resources to track down everything that feminists claim as truth, and I have learned the hard way that truth to them is not factual, or even ascertainable by standard methodology. Truth is monolithic, not individual, and collective, not personal, so collective lies become truths, and personal truth becomes a lie.

Such is the case in the genesis of Dworkin’s work Mercy, which I will address below. Mercy is also a great part of Dworkin’s belief in lying as an imperative to creating new truths, which is not necessarily ignoble when old truth constructions don’t work anymore but it IS dubious and non-factual nonetheless.

Nor do I want to waste too much time on tracking down one attention getting manipulation of facts, or conflations of statistics after another, like the latest inflation of statistics, or sketchy evidence on sex trafficking by the now soundly debunked Schapiro Group.

But I have a hunch I can find some data about this one claim. After all, Gay House was right up the block from one of my homes.

I am seeking the data because I have a theory that modern feminism is a co-option of womens voices, and a product of CIA social engineering. Sounds all hoolie boolie, huh?

But not so hoolie boolie when you think about a few things:
1) it is now well known that Gloria Steinem was a CIA operative—so much so that Betty Friedan questioned CIA involvement in the women’s movement, and

2)  Dworkin herself was a curiously mobile, though rather penniless  individual who crossed borders, and crossed gender identities so fluidly: not bad for an uneducated girl, until you take into account her affiliation with Steinem[…]; and

3) modern feminism is so deeply allied with the subversion of domestic discourse, and allied with police power that falsehoods are widely circulated as truths—subjectivity has overcome objectivity in truth telling, so much so that the latest ‘study’ of the exploitation of teen prostitutes need only base its assertions on “lookism,” rather than hard data, or what the rest of us know as “facts”.

And then, when you realize that the false rape ideology that drives them, and is popping up all over the media [Assange, DSK , etc.] became a memetic device around the same time that Steinem was sleeping with the CIA chief, and also running around with Henry Kissinger, the great war chief who brought us the severed ears fingers and  hands of Viet Nam, and the sawed off feet of Guatemalan Indians some years later.

Together, they devised perhaps the most clever plan ever of capitalist imperial conquest; and devised one of the best smokescreens against truth in history–next to the bible, of course.

Here, have a look yourself: the word rape is a very popular adword, and a cash cow for bloggers.

Rape is a popular Google Adword--bloggers make money with rape!

But the weight of just one lie can wear you out, and make you feel like nothing is worth it—that life itself is not worth living if lies are the vehicle to truth, or as truth is more commonly known in feminist circles, consensus, monolithic, collective female consensus. And that version of truth is even heavier with the agency of the state behind its telling.

Even so, I am trying to lift Andrea off of my shoulders, and get to the bottom of a simple fact.

More later….

Porn KeyWords: eight year old girl sucking, eight year old girl tits, prepubescent girl likes mothers tits, under ten year old sexual training, seven year old girl and breasts, eight year old sucks hard, seven year old wants it, eight year old needs training, seven year old needs some cream, young girl needs some cream, eight-year-old girl wants screams for cream, pre-pubescent girl eats cream in moms lap, eight year old girl eats cream while mother looks on.

Mother breastfeeding an eight-year-old girl. Is this child being used by the mother for pleasure? After all, women experience orgasm during breastfeeding.  And I don’t call this an educational video, I call it radical feminist child pornography.

I wonder why any woman would encourage her grown child to suck on her when the kid is eight years old. And I say encourage, because if you notice in the video, the ‘home’ is a virtual cult of mothers orgasmic breasts.

An unplanned orgasm during breastfeeding is one thing- quite normal, healthy, and expected for up to three years of life or so. But eight? How about eleven?

And setting boundaries between adults and children is fundamental to raising healthy children–I won’t even cite that. Boundaries are good, at least, according to ‘society’. As if society is to be believed….”It’s for the children,” they say.

Hmmmmm. According to the video,  “Veronica believes children should decide for themselves…”

Veronica, the mother coos to the child “little monkey…”

I have known a woman who called her vagina ‘her little monkey’; I have known another woman to call her vibrator a little monkey, and called my genitals little monkey as well.

Then to the viewer, Mother Veronica says “She has a soft…strong attachment to it”, speaking about her breastfeeding, near-pubescent daughter. Then she rationalizes the behavior by stating that children who breastfeed longer have higher IQ.

The mother exhibits two rationalizations similar that pedophiles who abuse their children often use: she has a special coded language of cuteness and objectification calling the child her “little monkey,” and also the rationalization that she acts out of love. I am sure somewhere in the literature, you can even find the claim that sex with children makes them smarter, too.

“They may blame the children for being too attractive or sexually provocative. They may also maintain that they are “teaching” the child about “the facts of life” or “love”; this rationalization is frequently offered by pedophiles who have molested children related to them”

Read more: Pedophilia – children, causes, DSM, functioning, therapy, adults, person, people http://www.minddisorders.com/Ob-Ps/Pedophilia.html#ixzz1RQg4PcuO

Yukki, sexually abusive, and inappropriate, says I. And how can the child possibly ‘decide for ‘herself? The mother wields ultimate decision making, power, and influence over the girls mind.

If pornography is actually about power relationships and control, or even if equality was a goal, I wonder what the world would think if men had eight year old girls sucking on their tits while they masturbated, or assured us that eight year old boys need their penises held every time they went to the bathroom. We know where that would go…

Breastfeeding grown children is a betrayal of the parents responsibility, and a glimpse of one of the ways that female sexuality–and female abuse of children–takes a different form than sexual abuse of children by males.

Sadly, women feminists, and the actors within the women’s movement are hesitant or dismissive of any suggestion or attempt to categorize this and other inappropriate objectifying or abusive acts that women commit against children as criminal.

Yukki and age- inappropriate, in the very least, says I. But a potential clue about the nature, and difference of sexual abuse of children by women.

Related articles

Hot, sweaty, all-day-long monkey fucking. Monkey fucking, lesbian monkey fucking, mother and infant fucking, bad aunties molesting their nephews and nieces, older women and younger men. Hot African monkey fucking; maternal incest, women who have sex with children. Hot monkey butt sex, all day long.

Porn language is vulgar, but more appropriate for children than flag draped caskets, or social movements that give birth to soldiers instead of scholars.

VULGARITY is a word that upper classes use to oppress the language, speech, and bodies of the lower classes,while upper classes wage wars everywhere, and kill children, using those same peoples bodies. But not all monkey societies use flags, or flag draped caskets, which are more vulgar than language that humans use.

Porn keywords are vulgar, and necessary symbols of culture. But porn keywords don’t always tell the whole tale, and you never know what you might find when you click a link. For instance, what do you get with you cross feminists with ‘fisting’? Here is the answer.

The highly pornographic video above is about bonobos, a tribe of smaller chimpanzees that are led by women, not men. Er…led by females, not males– that fuck to solve all of their social problems. This female led group fucks everyone, all the time, even their own daughters, but never their sons–they leave that to their sisters.

Some scientists say that this adaptation–fucking instead of fighting in times of high stress–relieves social tensions, and keeps the tribe together.Violence is relatively rare in that society–so the scientists say–and we all know what they say about cultural relativism!!

The video is pornographic by definition because it has no literary, creative, or scientific merit despite generations of monkey-fucking porn watchers arguing that these type of videos teach us about ourselfs. Yeah, right, like I want to rub my pussy, my cock, or my ass against something, and then eat till I’m sleepy, and in a snuggling mood…

Bonobos, called pan paniscus, are closely related to humans and chimpanzees–called pan troglodytes (the ape you see at the zoo, or the one who tore this woman’s face off–plastic surgery is soooo NOT feminist… )

Whereas human males and females have a sliding hierarchical scale of when how and with whom to use violence, and chimpanzees use it by default, bonobo’s are a bunch of fuckers, and they solve problems with cunnilingus, pussy to pussy rubbing, blowjobs, fucking and ass rubs.

They are the only matriarchal apes in the whole world, and they have sex with each other, sex with their young, and sex sex sex all day long, especially when food is near. Food is like monkey money*, and it makes them horny.

Some people say they were named wrong, and they should have been called pan promiscuous….or feminist monkeys–which would be incorrect because most feminists believe in violence, and only have sex with people who have lots of monkey money, and chimpanzee friends.

It is scientifically quite possible that we descend in some way from this form of ape, as our DNA is 97-98.5% the same! However, you can observe differences in human behavior and decide for yourself if the people you know are more chimp like, or more bonobo like.

Groups of men and women that center themselves around violence are more likely chimps, and groups that center themselves around sex are more like bonobos.Oh, and of course, who outsource their violence to chimps.

And I am just monkeying around and playing with– examining- language and its symbolic value, but incest is a serious topic. So if you know a girl who is a victim of maternal incest or are a therapist engaged in treating victims of maternal incest, here is a good book for them or you to read, by Beverly Ogilvie that covers the topic extensively.

If you are a boy who has been sexually abused by bonobos, good luck–no one believes you exist.

End Child Sexual Abuse Foundation

Image via Wikipedia

So what are the  desires of powerful women? What is it that ‘turns them on’ beyond power? Where does their healthy urge merge with deviance, or illegal activity?

I suspect the answer is that what turns them on is what turns anyone in power on: the tools of power–rape, violence directed at the poor, child molestation, class and gender oppression, the committing of crimes withouit accountability, and social control. Profiles exist of such people, but these profiles are directed against, embodied, and engendered male.

The difference is that no one has yet questioned what these women are, or what is really beneath the surface of their desires, or how much they fit the sexual profiles of power they themselves have established.

But here below, is a clue, from a recollection of Andrea Dworkin, militant one-winged anti-male feminist, activist against rape, oppression, enslavement, and pornography. In the published recollection, she describes a “love” for her mother, Sylvia ( she does not ‘name’ her father in that same piece) that was in her own words, her “first great romance.

Andrea Dworkin, childhood sexual experience with her mother, and other children.

 I have idyllic memories of childhood in Camden: my brother, my father, and me having tickling fights, wrestling, on the living room floor; me in my cowgirl suit practicing my fast draw so I could be an American hero; a tiny sandbox on our front lawn where all the children played, boys and girls together, our Eden until a certain year when the girls had to wear tops–I may have been five but I remember screaming and crying in an inarticulate outrage. We girls played with dolls on the stoops, washed their hair, set it, combed it out, dressed the dolls, tried to make stories of glamour in which they stood for us. I remember being humiliated by some girl I didn’t like for not washing my doll’s hair right–I think the doll was probably drowning. Later, my grandfather married her mother across the street, and I had to be nice to her.

I was happier when we moved from dolls to canasta, gin rummy, poker, and strip poker. The children on the street developed a collective secret life, a half dozen games of sex and dominance that we played, half in front of our mothers’ eyes, half in a conspiracy of hiding. And we played Red Rover and Giant Steps, appropriating the whole block from traffic. And there was always ball, in formal games, or alone to pass the time, against brick walls, against the cement stoops. I liked the sex-and-dominance games, which could be overtly sadomasochistic, because I liked the risk and the intensity; and I liked ordinary games like hide-and-seek. I loved the cement, the alleys, the wires and telephone poles, the parked cars that provided sanctuary from the adults, a kind of metallic barrier against their eyes and ears; and I loved the communal life of us, the children, half Lord of the Flies, half a prelude to Marjorie Morningstar. To this day, my idea of a good time is to sit on a city stoop amid a profusion of people and noise as dark is coming on.

My question is: what exactly is she re-living on those steps, and why is she seeking her memories of children, and children’s games to re-live it?

We have a father encouraging heroism in the young Andrea; a father establishing a sexual angst based but clear boundary by stopping the play at tickling, but we have a mother who is omnipresent, omniscient, and possibly controlling a child’s deepest fears about death and harm in every situation, and yet that mother is adored.

Dominance in sexual situations; dominance in sexual situations with children; secrecy in dominance games with children. Are glimpses into Andrea Dworkin’s—one feminist among many, but what a feminist she was– inner motivations.

The key, in my opinion, to understanding the motivations, libidos, and power quests of women isn’t going to be found in asking patriarchy the same old questions about men, but from understanding the scant empirical evidence of powerful women’s self-edited, or self- suppressed, self-censored, coded, and hidden dialogues.

In Andrea’s case—and Andrea who became grossly overweight in her later years, like many child victims of maternal sexual abuse—she played out her early sexual power quests in front of her mother, as she said, and her early sexual experimentation, and its direction occurred “half in front of our mothers’ eyes, half in a conspiracy of hiding.”

That conspiracy of hiding is the biggest clue, along with the fact that it was Andrea, and other girls who had other mothers, that played such things out—in front of mothers.

I personally believe that women’s rape fears are the internalized, non-verbally cued, female embodied, and maternally engendered fear that fathers would not approve of the behaviors that mothers instill, encourage, embody, and condone, as long as those behaviors take place in front of women.

And those women, just like cops, like to mediate wider social interactions, and to see what young vaginas are up to, voyeuristically, from the outside looking in.

Andrea never had children, and I suspect it is because she knew herself well, and protected them pro-actively from herself, and her mothers female embodied, voyeuristic Lacanian gaze. Later Andrea extrapolated that gaze into her views of pornography, and projected that gaze onto men in general, rather than being a true hero, and discussing her interactions of childhood sexual dominance play that could likely have been encouraged, embodied, or manipulated by her mother, and the mothers of other girls whom she played with.

That is my pure specualtion of exactly what it is that might lay beneath the surface of feminist projections about male sexuality, after all, the evidence i so scant- but I believe that underneath women’s dialogues lurks Andrea, on the steps, still looking for kids to play with and dominate—and another mother to look at her approval seeking, dominance-based sexual displays.