3 Out of 4
3 in 4 B.C. boys on street sexually exploited by women
Vancouver Sun, Gerry Bellett , Canwest News Service, Tuesday, May 27, 2008
VANCOUVER - Canada's largest study into the sexual exploitation of street kids and runaways has shattered some myths about who the abusers might be - with the most surprising finding being that many are women seeking sex with young males.
"Some youth in each gender were exploited by women with more than three out of four (79 per cent) sexually exploited males reporting exchanging sex for money or goods with a female," said Elizabeth Saewyc, associate professor of nursing at the University of British Columbia and principal investigator for the study conducted by Vancouver's McCreary Centre Society. . . .
"I must admit it wasn't something we were expecting.". . . . . .
I say, isn't that last line just SO precious....??
I can depict to myself, with a small effort of the imagination, the class of lecherous, menopausal, divorced or adulterous females who engage in such traffic. The same kind who go on sex tourism holidays to Jamaica, etc. Well, possibly a notch lower on the economic scale.
Read the full article HERE:
http://tinyurl.com/64p8f2
posted by Fidelbogen at 5:53 PM
4 Comments:
It's always been a bit of a riddle to me - we have laws and enforcement to dissuade undesirable behaviours right?
So if we crack down on sexual abuse and violent crime, but only if men do it, doesn't it follow that men's offending will drop, and that women's offending in proportion to men's will increase?
Isn't it obvious that a point will be reached where most sex offendors and violent criminals will be women?
And if anyone were to deny this, wouldn't they be saying that law is ineffective in dissuading undesirable behaviour - so why bother outlawing anything at all?
"And if anyone were to deny this, wouldn't they be saying that law is ineffective in dissuading undesirable behaviour - so why bother outlawing anything at all?"
Hmmm...
If they denied that "most sex offenders and violent criminals" were women. . .
Then they would most likely be feminists in denial, clinging to the ideological pillar that women cannot be such things at all.
I'm going to presume that most readers of this blog are familiar with the book WHEN SHE WAS BAD: HOW AND WHY WOMEN GET AWAY WITH MURDER. http://tinyurl.com/5uwdfb
In the her book, Pearson exposes both the extent of female violence and society's ideological incredulity toward the fact of it. As one reviewer succinctly put it:
"She is a good reporter, and--no doubt in anticipation of conventional feminist objections--she has done the work necessary to back up even her most inflammatory ideas. If Pearson appears a tad gruesome in her eagerness for gender-neutral extermination, her larger crusade, for women's moral equality, is undoubtedly worthwhile."
And further more:
Statutory rape law is a product of the moral campaigns of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries which were largely spearheaded by women. These laws took their form, in no small part, due to early feminist attacks on the perceived evils of male sexuality. Convinced of the moral superiority of their own gender, the principal concern of these activist women was "to arouse popular female anger at male sexual license" and "oppressive male initiative." This, in part, explains why statutory rape law failed to afford young males the same protection conferred to young females. To be sure, these same Victorian ladies were not concerned with their own sexual license, which was considerable. Young males, presumably not harmed by the seductions of older women like themselves, where left sexually available to women generally. The House Of Lords originally warned that the proposed laws were unfair to men and boys alike but early feminists, steeped in theories of class struggle, accused them of wanting to keep lower class women available to upper class men.
The perceived harm of "teen sex" has long been codified in modern psychology. Since the eighteenth century, the steady proliferation of discourses concerned with sex has sought to "unveil" human sexuality. In fact, the very term "sexuality" was born in psychology. The discourses would make sure every aspect of sexual behavior was prudently named and expurgated. Every act had to be brought into its light and examined in searching detail; even and especially desire itself. It was in this effort that the male sex would become, both in the eyes of the law and modern psychology, the second sex, the unconsidered and inconsequential sex - and owing to a pejorative view of masculine nature, the morally inferior sex.
Feminism would only compound men's pejorative moral status as males would ultimately be faulted for every impropriety, every perversion, and every circumstance leading up to every act of libertinage and unlawful sexual activity including, and this is the genius of feminist theory, prostitution. Whether moralist or feminist, both made a point of berating male sexuality as predatory and ultimately culpable. Women, on the other hand, were forever and always innocent. Not simply in Victorian society but in feminist society as well. As feminist theory added to the copious psychologic "talk about sex," the talk only furthered the conviction that an educated view would conclude that women were an oppressed class and that men had to be reprimanded and reformed. The verdict was out, men were guilty as charged Laws were passed. And indeed, men were convicted. . Recently, this moral campaign has extended itself into every aspect of sexual, domestic, and social relations.
To wit:
Given our traditionally conservative views of sex, the law exists to protect women more so than men because women have been viewed (and have viewed themselves) as the principal victims of sin's supposed harm. This is what was preached by our grandmothers and our mothers. Today, we still hold to these feelings where girls are concerned regardless of the effects of sexual liberalism. This is to say, while notions of sexual sin and debauchery are passe they've been supplanted by a decidedly feminist rubric of exploitation, trauma, and dominance.. In their liberality, feminists have moved notions of sexual harm away from ideas of physical debauchery and the loss of moral virtue into the equally amorphous area of psychological damages. The claim that too-early sex can have devastating effects on girls' self esteem, their reputations, school performance, body image, and long-term aspirations is still common. The same concerns are rarely expressed for boys. But why? When kids become teenagers, no one doubts the sexual appetite of boys. However, the raw sexual appetite of the girls is generally denied, transfigured, and transformed into something more complex and, at the very least, more noble. This helps to explain why society is more pious about the "abuse" of girls than of boys. We are less concerned about boys because we view them as less virtuous to begin with. Boys are assumed to "enjoy it." Any suggestion that girls "enjoy it" is regarded as reprobate and sexist. Consequently, if a man seduces of a young girl, it's a perverse act of criminal exploitation. If a woman seduces and young boy, it's just a little experience and an early education.
If equality between the sexes is to be anything more than superficial, we must purge ourselves and society of these attitudes.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home