To be honest I wasn't looking forward to hearing from him. He has been quoted in several media outlets as saying that child sexual abuse is on the decline. I took issue with him in a couple of blog posts back in June of this year. He did make his claims that child sexual abuse is declining. What he didn't say was that his data shows a decline in child sexual abuse. He obtains his data from child sexual abuse cases where the victim tells. The reality is that when he comes to any type of sexual assault only ten percent of people tell. He did make clear that it is very hard to be able to get accurate data on this topic. He also made clear that the topic of child sexual abuse is a very grim topic.
He also shared that his statistics prove how wide spread child sexual abuse is. He focused in on the fact that child sexual abuse is an international issue. He made a couple of statements that to be honest made me get up and leave the conference. He made the claim that, "It is a fallacy that all children who experience sexual abuse experience violence." He went on to say, "Some children experience sexual abuse in a loving way." I almost threw up I had to walk away for awhile. It doesn't matter if a child is molested or penetrated, whether it's violent or not, child sexual abuse is a crime. It leaves scars that last for some a lifetime.
The second thing he said is that, "He thinks that human trafficking shouldn't be a separate issue then child sexual abuse." He said that, "He thinks it does harm to separate the to." I didn't like his attitude he displayed to those in the movement to help educate on and help abolish human trafficking. I couldn't believe when he made the claim that, "He doesn't believe that their is clear evidence that internet perpetrators are distinct from other perpetrators." He claims that most children who are victimized on the internet know their perpetrator. He was implying that since most children who are sexually abused know their abuser that it is the same for perpetrators on the internet. This is just not so. What online perpetrators do is to groom children they don't know by pretending they are someone else. They tend to get children to do things i.e. video private areas of their bodies. Then they disclose who they are and tend to blackmail children to making more videos or taking more pictures. A girl in Canada killed herself because of this last month.
At one point I felt I was sitting in a seminar espousing how wonderful child sexual predators are. He claims that not all offenders are predatory. That some relationships between adults and children become sexual when the adult had no ill intentions. That after the relationship developed for the adult it became sexual. To me it sounded like he was talking about GROOMING. He also stated that not all offenders are pedophiles. He stated that:
THESE ARE THE VERY CLAIMS THAT THOSE WHO WANT TO ABOLISH THE SEXUAL OFFENDER REGISTRY USE.We cannot identify many on the basis of interests, sexual orientation, polygraphy, motives or screening. A large number of offenders aren't predatory. Something changes in the relationship then the adults takes the relationship sexual. Most offenders do not have an offense history. Only 10% of newly identified offenders have prior record of abuse.
He discounts the fact that most offenders groom children over a period of time. And that this grooming is considered offending. That most offenders have offended at least one hundred times before they get caught. That this includes looking at child sexual abuse media, grooming, putting oneself where one has access to children, etc.
To me he seemed to be very empathetic toward the child sexual offender. He made it clear he doesn't like the sexual offender registry. He believes that it creates a false sense of security. Which may be true. When asked if he feels the registry should be abolished he made it clear that there are those who are at risk of re-offending that do need to be on the registry. He particularly doesn't think that youth should be on the registry period. He shared some valid points about why. I have discussed concerns I have with Romeo and Juliette "offenders" on this blog several times. I asked the question about the SOR and also asked if he did any type of research on You Tube predators. He said, "No, he hasn't done any research on You Tube predators."
He made some very good points that have been discussed on this blog many times. About how to protect children and since most know their abusers that parents/guardians have to be vigilant about making sure that nothing is happening to children. Especially through creating an environment where children feel comfortable sharing if something is happening to them. This includes discussing sexual abuse and telling children that if something like this happens to them that they will believed.
His presentation opened up dialog at the table of people I was sitting with. I was able to educate them on the movement to abolish the sexual offender registry. I shared how Dr. Finkelhor's comments are used by the movement to support their theory. I also had people come up to me and thank me for getting up and leaving because it made it easier for them to get up and leave. He is a brilliant man and has done tremendous work for child sexual abuse. I worry that his research is being used in a way that he never expected. It can undo a lot of the good work he has done over the years. Rosie
No comments:
Post a Comment