fissileone @108 said "All claims require proof."

One should demand evidence before putting someone in prison, but it's fine to stop socializing with someone based on your child's claim, without proof.

A child could never prove they were secretly molested (how would they??); that's why it's important not to expect "proof" in these circumstances.

Just stop giving the person unsupervised access to your child. Done. No one's civil liberties were infringed in any way.

Capricornius @102: "they want to maintain a conservative majority in the Supreme Court"

See, even this, to me, means they are terrible people who want to deprive the less privileged of their rights. Why should I accept that view as equivalent to the one who says, all people deserve rights and equality? It isn't, and never will be.

Slinky @103: "Can we dispense with the premise that women don't know the difference between somebody intending to creep on/prey on them, and somebody who is just going about their business? That we're incapable of reading body language and people who intend to push on our boundaries and our safety because our poor little ladybrains can't handle the cold cruel world?"

Good story, but I think this approach could be dangerous if you look at the flip side. Why did that woman accept a drink from a guy who'd spiked it? Surely she should have been able to tell he was a predator, not the charming guy he appeared to be? Obviously her own instincts let her down; it's her own fault she missed the signs and got raped.

To Mexas and Fissile: Sure, there is a slim chance that somebody is exaggerating or making something up. But how about we compare the outcomes? A child reports that someone did something creepy. You choose to believe the child and keep them away from that person. What's the worst that could happen? An adult gets their feelings hurt. But what if the child is telling the truth, or at least the 90% truth, and you choose to disregard their worries? What's the worst that can happen? See post @99. I can't believe anyone would be so callous that, if a child said a neighbour or babysitter molested them or made them feel uncomfortable, would say "Prove it."

@108. fissileone. I'm guessing you lie to people as a matter of course. Bit like @105, Don't Tess with Mexas, who lied and thinks it's something universal.
That's my polite response. wtf. After many women have shared some of their most vulnerable secrets of abuse, here on this thread, that they may have been sitting on and not resolving or expressing for many years, you write this sort of crap? Needing some proof. How the hell can a child show proof.
How bout you go off quietly by yourself somewhere and think about the implications of what your words mean.
In the meantime. shame on you.

BDF @111, I didn't say that support of a conservative Supreme Court was "equivalent" (I assume you mean morally). I said that it's not fair to demonize people who hold that opinion as "not worthy of love," or worse.

You, Lava, and Funwithrage say that all people voting for Trump are de facto Terrible People. I say that they are wrong-headed. I'm trying to change a few minds prior to the election. Fingers crossed.

I've been wrong-headed myself a time or two; I've made mistakes in my life that I deeply regret today, especially the ones that hurt people I loved. I suspect that most of us have a few sins of omission or commission on our records. Does that make us all Terrible People? No, because people can grow and change over their lives, often (though not always) for the better. You can hate someone's politics, and work to ensure that better policies prevail - but that's different from treating people like they are worthless and incapable of change.

Obama and Clinton both opposed single-sex marriage legislation when it was first introduced. Are they Terrible People, because they once wanted to deprive others of their rights? Trump was outspokenly pro-choice, until he realized (under strong pressure from the Republican leadership) that his position would be a deal-breaker in his bid for the Presidency. So was he a Good Person then, and a Terrible Person now? I don't think so.

I served in the military. I have seen first-hand what can happen when we demonize "THEM" in order to reinforce the justness of our own cause, and I have studied the history of war and conflict.The majority of Germans were not initially members of the Nazi party, but they bought into the Nazi propaganda that Jews bore most of the blame for Germany's economic woes in the 1930s. Jews were dehumanized by classifying them as a "societal disease" that would have to be systematically eradicated in order to restore the "health" of the Third Reich. Trump's demagoguery to "Make America Great Again" is scarily reminiscent of Hitler's racist rantings to the German citizenry, and I am certainly not an apologist for Trump's message or the support he has received thus far.

But I will say it again: we will never defeat the haters with hate.

Regarding skepticism and belief, yes, it's true that women, being people, as Don't Tess With Mexas, noted, sometimes lie. Sometimes they exaggerate the severity of an incident, and sometimes they fabricate the incident entirely. This extends to false charges of rape.

In cases of accusations of sexual assault this is where the presumption of "innocent until proven guilty," and having a healthy dose of skepticism need to intersect for both parties. So we can apply the attitude that both the accused and the accuser are innocent (i.e. telling the truth, in the case of the accuser) until we can prove that one of them is guilty of either action or untruth. And we can turn a skeptical eye on both people and both of their stories. I don't think that any and every women who alleges that something unprovable has happened to her should always, every single time, be assumed to be telling the truth. For example, I think it's highly probable that Mia Farrow, furious over what was a creepy and border-crossing relationship between her barely-adult daughter and Woody Allen, Farrow's long-term boyfriend, made up allegations that Allen molested their 7-year-old daughter as a way to retaliate. She's made several statements which show her as being willing to distort the truth as a way of striking back at Allen. (For what it's worth, I don't think that Dylan Farrow is lying when she says her father molested her; given her age and the ease with which memories can be implanted or distorted and the importance this narrative has for her mother, I am sure that she really believes her story to be true.)

That doesn't mean that the automatic response to a woman reporting illegal sexual assault should be to be skeptical of her. It means to start with the presumption that she is telling the truth. And if it turns out she's not, she should be on the hook for it, legally. But we don't treat people who report any other crime the same way as we do women who report sexual assault, and that seems wrong and unfair. And given the way we do treat women when they report being assaulted--with skepticism and contempt, many times calling them liars or sluts, etc.--it's unlikely that a lot of women would wantonly go around making false accusations. It doesn't generally go easily for them after that. Check out this very thread for starters. Listen to Trump supporters for more. That is why so much sexual assault goes unreported or why when once one woman is wiling to come forward with her story about a well-liked or well-known or powerful or rich man, a momentum gets going--because other women think that maybe they'll be listened to now, when they despaired of every being listened to before.

All the above, howerver just addressed criminal acts of sexual assault . These sometimes can and sometimes cannot be proved. They are punishable crimes. If someone is falsely convicted, he is wrongfully punished, sometimes quite severely--lynching, anyone?

But the skeptics in this comment thread are conflating criminal acts with men who creep women out. Creeping women out isn't a crime, and it doesn't need to be investigated as one--nor does it need to have skepticism applied to it. Because feeling creeped out, is just that: a feeling. It's subjective. If I tell you that the way that man was staring at me made me feel uncomfortable, who are you to tell me that it didn't? We're talking about the way people feel, and we're not saying that men who stare at women in ways that make them uncomfortable or follow too closely behind or for too long should be charged with some sort of crime. As EricaP pointed out, all you have to do in response to a person telling you that someone else creeps them out is to help them stay away from that person. If you are a parent or an adult who has influence over a child's actions, and the child tells you that she doesn't like it when Uncle X hugs her or that Cousin Z always wants her to sit on his lap and she doesn't like it, you don't have to call the police. You don't even have to confront the person who makes the kid uncomfortable--although if it that lap-sitting thing, you may want to. All you have to do is run a bit of interference or say, "Sally doesn't really want to give hugs these days," or not allow the sleepover. It's that simple; it hurts no one.

I don't understand why so many people seem to think that honoring someone else's own feelings of discomfort can't be done without somehow jumping to drag an innocent man to the gallows. Rethink your "skepticism;" it smacks of patriarchy and sexism.

Well said, Nocute @116. This comment wins the thread.

"If I tell you that the way that man was staring at me made me feel uncomfortable, who are you to tell me that it didn't?"

I'd never question whether you felt something (it'd be pointless), or whether you have the right to act on your gut (we should all do that).

But that's not the issue here, at least not for me: the issue is whether I have the right to have an opinion about whether your reaction was JUSTIFIED, and (especially) whether i'm expected to instantly affirm your narrative, no questions asked, and the only alternative is to be an "apologist" for disgusting behavior.

Lots of white women are creeped out by black men, feel threatened by their very presence, and will interpret anything that comes out of their mouth in the most negative way possible. Should we "honor their feelings of discomfort"?

All my experience in life tells me that ALL people -- men, women, and children -- are unreliable narrators of their own experiences. I don't listen to any story that ANYONE tells me about ANYTHING -- especially if they're asking me to take their side in some way -- without mentally taking note of things I think don't add up, or places where I wonder if they're slightly embellishing the truth. In my experience, most people will take any opportunity they can to "spin" things in a self-serving way, EVEN IF they're already in the right and don't need to add more sugar to the mix.

FFS, when my own parents would argue (sometimes horribly), they could each tell you a totally plausible story about how right they are and how awful the other person is. And yet having witnessed the argument, I can tell you firsthand that they're both only telling part of the truth, and only the parts that favor themselves. Are they "lying"? Are they both right, or both wrong? How should I "honor their experience"?

I've spent my entire life "reading between the lines" of what people tell me, because I've gotten burned too many times by stories that summon my righteous indignation, only to find out that the harrowing story I was told was only half of the truth. Now, LW1's story doesn't raise any red flags for me, personally; I believe the basic facts of her account, and I know firsthand the leering, grasping quality of certain drunks.

Take away the booze, though, and I'd be less certain, and might wonder if the LW was projecting her own experiences, traumas, or prejudices onto an ambiguous situation -- because I've known too many people who do exactly that, either because they're traumatized or for other reasons. If a rescue dog cowers when I raise my hand to turn on a lightswitch, it's a heartbreaking sight, but that doesn't mean that it was "right" to do so, or that I was "wrong" to lift my arm. If a woman crosses the street when she sees two "sketchy" black men approaching, that's her right, but insisting that I "honor" her feelings or reactions is another matter entirely: how do I know why she did what she did? Am I obligated to be supportive of a reaction very possibly borne of racism -- or classism, lookism, or ageism?

If a child tells me that a person makes them feel creeped out, my first instinct is to help them avoid close contact with that person, sure. But I'm also going to ask questions, not just accept their account at face value. For one, if there's something sketchy going on I want to know about it, but OTOH kids are often repulsed by unattractiveness, illness, strange smells, old age, or even differences in races. Teaching children that they're entitled to be insulated from people they find aesthetically unpleasant is a non-starter.

Today Rebecca Solnit, author of many books including Men Explain Things To Me, posted this on her Facebook page. I think it is relevant:

Read this, please, from my hero for today. Mary Diaz writes: This is a thing that happened. Driving through the back roads this morning I was enjoying the energy of this pack of road bikers in front of me taking up 2/3 of the lane. Until one of them yelled into my open window "You fucking stupid cunt!" I was driving slow as I passed on the left and there were at least 30 men in this group- wasn't sure how to navigate around them so I'd slowed down as I passed. A mile or so later I pulled over when I realized his comment had left me shaking. Then there they were pulled up across the street stopping for a break and I found myself inexplicably out of the car striding over to the leader: "I really enjoyed seeing you guys on the road this morning. I was thinking about my little boy who's about to turn 3 and lives on his bike. I was thinking how I bet he'll ride like you someday..." /pause/awkward. The group was staring now- sipping water bottles. My voice betrayed me but I managed "...one of you called me a fucking. stupid. cunt. and...you hurt my feelings." Then of course I started to cry even though I really just wanted to be angry. The pack leader interjected "aww come on hon...don't get emotional...didn't mean anything by it... just a bunch of guys...all worked up on adrenaline....wasn't personal..." And there it was__my anger__and it was clear and sharp. I pointed at him and said "YOU do not call me 'hon.' YOU do not tell me not to be emotional. You think you're allowed to get emotional and verbally assault a stranger and then deny them the right to react? " He stammered dumbly but I kept going not quite as shaky "Whoever said that...you hurt me. I want you to know that your words had an impact." I felt completely ridiculous right then but he tried once again muttering about guys and their egos and getting caught up in the intensity (of the ride)...competition and anyway it was just a joke..." And I cut him off "next are you going to tell me it was just locker room talk?" A collective cringe from the group at that. "What you are saying is what men always say to excuse their unchecked aggression. And it is not ok. And it's sure as hell not a joke. You have no idea what you're doing to me to...everything...when you say that. "I probably didn't sound as articulate at that point but by then I too was jacked on adrenaline and couldn't help adding something completely ridiculous ala "...and cunts are not stupid they're fucking magic" before walking away. 🙈
As I pulled out one of the men peddled up grabbing my open window and looked me all the way in the eyes. "It was me...who said it. I'm sorry. Thank you for slowing down...I get worked up sometimes. I'm sorry I hurt your feelings." And he was. So I said thank you awkwardly and drove away.

Like many/most women, I have had bad experiences. Such as being touched by strangers and non strangers, grabbed by my pussy (yes, it happens), punched in the breast, chased and nearly kidnapped by a dude in a truck.
And other things that won't be discussed here.
Not including verbal harassment.
But I feel more secure after getting training, conceal carry certified, and getting firearms. When a dude cornered me against a cliff on a trail and told me he could do whatever he wanted, when he realized I had a holstered gun he made himself disappear.
Notice to the creepers out there. The women you try to assault next might be a black belt, might have bear spray or mace, or might just have a firearm...and are prepared to defend themselves.
And you apologists can fuck right off.

@121
Recently I was at a trail area with a female TV reporter to talk about efforts to stop proposed development. A cyclist tore by and shouted at us that we were "stupid cunts" for taking up too much room (standing next to each other) on a 2-lane road closed to vehicle traffic. He didn't bother to care she was a TV reporter (her camera was taken down already), and we talking about how to protect his precious stomping grounds.
Angry misogynist dudes might want to pay more attention to their surroundings and actions.
Reporter didn't do a followup, development is going through. Not hard to imagine that it might have made a difference.
(Side note, there was a ton of room on the road.)

@114 capricornius. I do agree with you that hating those who hate is not going to achieve anything. I don't advocate hate re LW2.
Just that she leave him.

Meant @119 lol

@113 - fuck you.

Sorry fissileone@124. Did I hurt your feels.

@99 apoptotic: I am so sorry to read about what has happened to you! I, too, do care. That is truly awful.
Although there weren't as many drinking-related uncomfortable incidents, I have also had similar experiences in my childhood, teens and early twenties.
Situations like being singled out and groped by older men---the father of a childhood acquaintance that followed me into the woods behind their house, grabbed and sloppily kissed me. Later, he found out I was married and back in my home state after four years in the U.S. Navy (I am still presently dealing with sexual harassment issues from my military service years). How he got my name, number, and contact information out of the blue, and wanted to "get together sometime" still creeps me out. I was so relieved when I found out some time back that he'd died of cancer. I hope he ended up a lonely old man.

@116 Right spot on, nocutename! I'm with Capricornius @117, and second your nomination as comment thread winner.

@89 & @90: Excellent points!! Thank you both, too.

@119 nocutename: Wow, nocute--thanks for sharing about Rebecca Solnit, author of Men Explain Things to Me. Trump talk is not acceptable, anywhere, anytime.

@125 - no, I was just summarizing your response and replying back to you with it to save time and effort.

Someone says you can't take everything at face value, and all claims require evidence, and you claim they're a liar and react like a dick in response? Expect impolite responses in retort.

Stop being a dick and you'll get more polite responses from me.

Reread your post @108, fissileone. You say claims of abuse can be fabricated and proof is needed. I asked you how can children get proof if abuse is done away from anyone? Or a woman get proof if some guy feels her up in a crowded situation?
They can't. So by your reckoning unless there is other people witnessing such abuse, it didn't happen because people lie or they are mentally ill or they misremember.
Your position gives abused people, whether they be males or females as it can happen to anyone, no room to be heard.
I'll return the favour and say fuck you.

@131, no I didn't. Quote me. Go on. I said that all claims can be fabricated.

BTW: People do make false CPS revenge-claims all the time. And according to a 1996 study, at least 1/4 of claims are false.

You really should do some reading. Start with "Munchhausen by Proxy". http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/co…

Maybe look at the statisitics: Only 13% of reports were substantiated in Pennsylvania: http://www.dhs.pa.gov/cs/groups/webconte…

Your position gives abusers and mentally ill people cart-blanche to destroy others' lives. See also, Rolling Stone magazine: http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/feat…

... or any other numbers of cases which have happened over the last few years.

But I don't expect you to. Because you're on a very high horse.

High horse. wtf are you talking about. You still
didnt answer my question @132. How do children prove abuse. How do women prove abuse. If these acts of abuse are not witnessed by others.
Yes, there have been instances of people fabricating stories. I've read re the Rolling Stone incident. Because a few people lie you suggest that no one should be believed unless the abuse is witnessed. Don't you see how insane that position is?

Don't Tess With Mexas @118 wrote: "Teaching children that they're entitled to be insulated from people they find aesthetically unpleasant is a non-starter."

How about teaching children they don't have to be alone with anyone or accept touching by anyone who makes them feel uncomfortable?

If you want to model outreach for your children, then let them see you building strong relationships with people who are older, sicker, and/or look different from yourself. Don't leave the child alone to do that work, when they've already said they feel vulnerable or violated.

fissileone @132, there's a lot of room between believing people who say they've been violated and "destroying" the lives of those they accuse. Surfrat @12 is wrong to suggest pummeling the guy at the store, but the LW acted reasonably by saying "Do not touch my child" and then talking to her child about her own experiences.

Mexas I love how you twisted 'feeling unsafe' into 'racism'. But then this ties in the pervasive belief that all women are liars. That what we say doesn't matter unless we have concrete evidence backing it up.

Look I agree if legal action is brought both sides must be investigated. But no one is saying the drunk should be arrested, only questioning why we have a society where the feelings of a drunk guy being a creep are considered more important than a child's well-being.

@133,134 - I started on this thread with a simple premise: Claims require evidence. Not gossip, or hearsay, but evidence. It's the foundation of the modern legal system, and stops things like the Salem witch trials.

Trust but verify. Don't dismiss the claimant, but also, don't believe everything you hear.

Yes, it's difficult. Until we invent a polygraph that actually works, that's as good as you can ask from any rational actor.

Let's say that I came to you as a friend and told you that I had incurable cancer, and I needed help funding the treatment. Would you help without questioning it?

Still you haven't answered my question.@136 How can children verify to others they were abused if no one else saw the abuse.
Now you've off on some tangent about fundraising for cancer.
I'm done in this discussion. I sure hope you don't have children, because they would have to show you swore statements by witnesses that they were abused, before you'd believe them.

fissileone @136, if an acquaintance told me they had cancer I would offer whatever emotional comfort I could.

I would have more questions before offering cash, yes.

If a longtime friend asked for financial help with medical treatments, any questions would be about how I could best help them.

Different situations mean different standards.

Putting someone in prison for child molestation requires solid evidence. Removing my child from their care does not require any more evidence than my child's word.

If your kid said the babysitter fondled their genitals, would you wait to get solid evidence or just tell the sitter not to come back?

@138, Erica. If my child said that I'd be calling the police. Otherwise such a person would be doing this to other kids.

Oh Fissile. You've just wandered into these boards, a green newbie, and insulted one of our best loved members, who was 100% right about your attitude. Your fun here is over, sweetie. Oodletrend, who's now rightly run away with his tail between his legs, should use @124 as an example of the "civilized discourse" he laughably accused me of lacking.

Fissile, I too am curious to hear your answer to Lava's question @131 (and repeated several times). If a child has been molested by an adult, and they were the only two present, how do you propose that child give evidence of what happened to them? I think we are all waiting. Your examples are bogus. Can you not see that potentially preventing child abuse is important enough that possibly, just possibly, a child's word should be enough to keep them away from a person who they claim creeps them out? Even if they just said the person creeped them out because they had bad breath or something, how on earth is society as a whole better served by forcing them to be alone with that person, when it is in fact entirely possible that person is an abuser -- or if not them, the next creeper, who they now know they'd best not speak up about because they won't be listened to?

Nobody is asking for donations here. We are talking about children's safety, not scams, not sending innocent people to jail without trial.

And regarding racism, that is largely learned too. A child may see a person with different coloured skin or hair that seems strange and ask, "Mommy, why is that man's skin so dark?" And depending on the answer, they formulate their attitudes toward other races. My parents managed to teach me both to be accepting of people of different races and abilities and to not let anyone touch me without my consent. It is not rocket science. It's called parenting.

Hunter @115: Should have known you'd come down on the "benefit of the doubt for drunken gropers" side. Sigh. Would you mind re-reading @99 once more to see the consequences of encouraging children to give the benefit of the doubt to adults who probably.... probably... don't mean any harm?

Griz @126: Ugh, that sounds awful. Amazing how any sort of non-consensual contact can creep us out for years to come. I think most men honestly do not understand how it is to be in a situation where someone is bigger, stronger, and more powerful than you, and the only thing coming between you and rape victimhood is his self-restraint... which we certainly cannot trust when he has already violated our boundaries. Or when someone else has in a similar situation. Powerlessness is an awful feeling. Snail @120, I guess I can't blame you, and I certainly hope you don't end up in the situation where a strong man wrestles your gun away from you and you end up raped AND murdered. (This would undoubtedly be the outcome in my case; besides, guns are thankfully not legal where I live.)

I also want to make the point, and parents here can back me up: Parents, you can usually tell when a child is making up a story; correct? You'd almost certainly know the difference between a child who had actually been traumatised by unwanted contact or just creepy vibes, and one who was telling a story in order to get out of something they didn't want to do?

Fine, you guys, you know, you're totally right. Believe accusations EVERY SINGLE TIME, especially from unreliable sources.

I hope you can find somewhere to store all of the bridges you buy.

@140 oh, and sweetie, please, don't call me sweetie without my consent, sweetie. It's misogynistic.

Sigh. "Believing everything one is told" is not the same thing as "erring on the side of protecting children from harm." But hey. It's not often someone actually admits they are wrong on the internet, so well done Fissile for showing the ability to learn. Kind of.

And "sweetie" is condescending. "Cunt" is misogynistic. Glad we've sorted that out.

@143 fissileone - hahaha, I was waiting for this, and it finally happened. Just like Oodletrend, when pressed to defend your position by answering a question, you first try to deflect and evade, and when that doesn't work, you resort to "no YOU're stupid!" Why is it so difficult to answer the question, if you truly believe your position is the correct one?

And by the way, the problem with your "simple premise" is that it's based on a false assumption - that everyone here wants to see people thrown in prison, mobbed, and/or lynched without due cause. I think most of us would settle for just more people understanding why it's not okay to treat other people like swatches at a fabric store (which was kind of LW1's point of writing in to begin with).

Erica @ 138
Lava @ 139
During my years in SAA/SLAA I’ve met some people with child abuse issues. Granted, they were those seeking help and were aware of their actions.
Yet one thing they all repeatedly said was how they wish they had been caught earlier in their lives, as it would have made them face their issues and being held accountable before proceeding with more severe acts.

fissileone @ 144
Fissile sweetie, the letter in hand described a child’s intuitive reaction to an interaction with an adult, and a parent who took it seriously.
One common thing I see with the personal stories that followed on this thread is the desperate feeling of no one to talk to about those experiences, not even the parents.
As I’m sure you can see sweetie, being called sweetie against your will is by far the easy part.

@nocutename: I don't understand why so many people seem to think that honoring someone else's own feelings of discomfort can't be done without somehow jumping to drag an innocent man to the gallows.

Perhaps it's more understandable when you consider that this all began with a thinly-veiled, completely baseless accusation of rape @31. Also, for most people, a sense of well-being goes beyond simply not being hanged or thrown in jail.

woofCandy@148. if people want to have a sense of well being then those people need to be very aware of their words and actions. No longer is there a pass for anyone catcalling or grabbing any part of another's body. Because they might find the recipient ain't gonna handle it quietly anymore.

FFS, people, this isn't about whether to believe our kids when they say the babysitter fondled them. This is about whether we're morally obligated to take the story of a stranger on the Internet at face value as long as they're (a) female and (b) telling a narrative of victimization.

Sexual offenses are, sadly, always going to be hard to prosecute, because so many of them boil down to one person's word against another's. That's down to the nature of our justice system: we've decided, quite rightly, that it's better to let the guilty go free -- even to let 100 guilty people go free -- than to punish one innocent person. We may not always live up to that ideal, but it's a worthy one. However, I'm getting the growing impression that some of you would honestly prefer a "guilty until proven innocent" regime for accusations of sexual assault, and that frightens me.

Some of you are claiming that false accusations are vanishingly rare. I don't find those claims credible. Have we forgotten the Duke lacrosse case so quickly? What about the ritual abuse panics of the 1980s and 1990s? As the stigma attached to being a sexual assault victim fades (as well it should), it unfortunately creates a perverse incentive for unscrupulous people to lie about it...or worse yet, to pressure their kids into lying about it, for financial gain or simply for revenge. People have lied about surviving 9/11 and the Holocaust; why should this be any different? Human beings -- not "women", but ALL HUMAN BEINGS -- will invariably find a way to exploit any system, however well-intentioned.

Finally, race is ALWAYS a part of any discussion about accusations of sexual assault; how can it not be? For nearly 100 years after the Civil War ended, a white woman had merely to say two words to get a black man -- ANY black man -- lynched. If you insist that all women claiming sexual assault have a "right to be believed", you're playing into a very real history of white women victimizing black men with no evidence but their say-so.

Like I said, I believe LW1's story, but that's mainly because (1) certain details ring true to me and (2) she doesn't have an "angle" to benefit. But if it didn't ring true to me, I have the ABSOLUTE FUCKING RIGHT to speak up if I don't believe her, or simply want to know more before throwing my support behind her.

If I ignore those feelings, what I'm really saying is that signaling my support for women is more important than being a truthful, honest human being -- that the truth matters less than my tribe (women), and that telling me a story that tells me what I want to hear (i.e. confirming my pre-existing feeling that women are victimized on a massive scale) is all you need to guarantee my support. And I promise to demonize anyone who dares question your narrative in any way, because only a worthless apologist for evil would do that.

Which sounds a hell of a lot like what Trump's been doing for the past 18 months.

DTWM @150, for me, this thread is in fact about establishing that children are routinely molested by family members and other adults in their lives, and asking people to believe their children and not leave them alone with someone they say has made them feel uncomfortable.

You can claim that it's about race, or about pressure to believe anonymous stories on the internet, or about throwing people in jail, or lynching -- but for me, it's about asking parents to believe their children even when you don't want to believe that the camp counselor or the neighbor or Grandpa or your spouse might have done these things. Believe the children at least enough to help them avoid being alone with the person who makes them feel uncomfortable.

And, yes, WoofCandy @148, providing one's kids with that level of protection may hurt the feelings of the other person. Do you have a better solution, that keeps everyone's well-being in mind? This isn't about "innocent until proven guilty" (a principle relevant to criminal cases) this is about children's freedom of association and bodily autonomy.

@151, you're welcome to focus on whatever issue you want, but the original letter is about the sad necessity of a parent teaching her child that there are predators out there. There's nothing in there about disbelieving them, or about anyone being disbelieved. The word "believe" doesn't even appear, neither in the letter nor Dan's response.

@EricaP: If you're talking specifically about the letter, I have no problem with the mother's reaction, and I'm fully behind teaching children to advocate for themselves.

I also agree with Oodle that over-anxious parenting is a real thing in our culture, and I don't fault him for raising that possibility, even if it was misapplied in this case.

For me, however, the discussion has gone well beyond the letter. I'd be surprised if I held any opinions on sexual assault (or gender relations in general) that couldn't be reconciled with those of any intelligent, independent-minded woman here, and yet I find myself feeling alienated by much of what was said above.

@150. And your take is what. Is our moral obligation to take the word of an internet user if they are a woman and a victim. Say again.
Call me naive, I tend to assume people are mostly telling the truth. If this story was about a little boy being touched by a person he and his guardian/ parent felt uncomfortable about, I'd have given similar responses.
I'd rather not see any rapists go free. But as we all know, they do.
And seriously fuck off with you assuming that commenters here would be fine to convict innocent men or women of sexual assault.

WoolCandy. @154. I've never been sexually assaulted, so I've not had the experiences the women here have shared with us.
Yes I've been with men whose sexual moves felt offensive and totally without sensitivity, I can't call them assault because I agreed to be with them.
Reading some of the stories has been hard, then I do feel the women just need to be witnessed. I haven't felt alienated so much as shocked and saddened and worried about my beautiful little granddaughter.

Don't Tess With Mexas: I don't join mobs

I'd like to make your entire post @104 into a t-shirt, but since it won't all fit, I'll just go with this sentence.

So now this thread is presenting a mob mentality?
I'd never suggest boys aren't abused, it's just the question wasn't about a little boy's experience it was about a little girl's. Neither is it about Black men being falsely accused of rape and being lynched.
It was a grown woman and her daughter reacting to a male, smelling of alcohol, assuming the right to touch a child he didn't know and who didn't want to be touched by him. Why it has turned into some bum fight says a lot about the fear that is about in relation to our female children being safe in a world that seems very unsafe.
Especially for females.

Those who have been posting a while know that the discussions in the comments often depart from the facts of the letters, to delve into more interesting issues.

@153, I joined the discussion because Oodletrend posted @57 that he warns his daughter to be careful around strangers, even while not wanting to presume "all male strangers [are] pedophiles."

The subtext was that he doesn't consider the danger posed by people he and his daughter already know. It's important for parents to be reminded that most people who might abuse their children are not strangers.

Then fissileone started a series of posts saying accusations without proof are just gossip, and not worth acting on. That's ridiculous. We all make judgments about who we associate with based on our feelings, rather than on proof about their character.

My point here again is about children, who are not customarily given the right to decide who they associate with. Grandparents, uncles, cousins, neighbors, babysitters -- all these people are in their lives, without the child having approved them. So if a child (any gender) speaks up to say that they feel uncomfortable being alone with someone, it's important to listen and not dismiss the child's concerns just because you'd prefer to think you haven't exposed them to a predator.

And WoofCandy, listening to your child is pretty much the opposite of joining a mob.

Before hunter does his usual hatchet job in his farcical weekly review I'd like to honour the women who came onto the thread this week.
Thank you all for trusting us to hear and witness the pain you have suffered at the hands of male abusers.

EricaP: listening to your child is pretty much the opposite of joining a mob.

Is it? I've seen children/adolescents form mobs against their peers, and I've seen them recruit their adoring parents into those mobs.

I'd say the opposite of joining a mob is standing up for the person who is being unfairly persecuted by it.

I have to mention that it's a little strange having this discussion with you. One of my first memories of this comment section was of you standing up against an ugly mob of commentors who were piling on some poor LW. It left an impression on me.

I said listen. And then don't leave your kid alone with someone who makes the kid uncomfortable.

I didn't say "support the kid in attacking someone."

Sorry, Woof @148. "It all started" with someone dismissing a mother who was protecting her child from a situation the child found upsetting as "an uptight, hyper-freaked-out, danger-is-everywhere contemporary American parent, who completely over- and misinterpreted a harmless gesture from a friendly, slightly tipsy person." Not with my musings on why a person might hold such a dismissive attitude.

Don't @150: "FFS, people, this isn't about whether to believe our kids when they say the babysitter fondled them."
Actually, it is.
But where do you get "as long as the teller is female" is from? Do you think we'd have had a substantively different discussion if the father had written in? Or do you think the father wouldn't have written in, because a man wouldn't have overstepped a child's boundaries in front of another man?
Personally, I believe stories on the Internet so long as they are plausible. And you yourself even admit that this was. So what is your issue? You just want to make sure we all know you're a liar and there are plenty more out there? Yes, we know. Thanks.
The "false accusations of rape" rate is estimated to be about 8%, with estimates varying from 1.5% to 10%. Funny how that is higher than the conviction rate, given that 92% of allegations are true. I wonder why this is? I also wonder how accurate the numbers can be, because, again, by your logic if the accused can't prove the accuser made up the story then how can we believe he is innocent?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_accu…

If you believe LW1, then I'm not sure where your tenacity in trying to convince us all that some people lie comes from. What's your agenda? Again (and again and again and again), no one is saying that people should be thrown in jail without trial. We are saying allegations of abuse should be taken seriously.

Hunter @152: And again (and again and again), if this nine-year-old learns an instinct for self-preservation from her mother, isn't that FAR better than the lesson Apoptopic @99 learned, which was, you must let adults touch you in any way they like?

Some utterly ridiculous leaps of logic in this week's thread. Can't wait for new letters, I feel a bit sickened by the human race right now.

Ms Fan - [The "false accusations of rape" rate is estimated to be about 8%, with estimates varying from 1.5% to 10%. Funny how that is higher than the conviction rate, given that 92% of allegations are true. I wonder why this is?]

There are two lines of response that occur to me. The easy one is that all criminal justice comes with a decided lean. The other is that it would be really interesting to see what would happen if rape could be a civil charge rather than a criminal one. Presumably, if we follow the line of the Simpson murder, there would be a good many more convictions if the standard were preponderance of the evidence rather than beyond a reasonable doubt. How would societal attitudes change then?

I'm closing now before this gets too murky.

Ms Cute @116 - You gave me the idea for a little skit in which there were a large party at which Ms Marcel felt creeped out after she noticed Dr Sean staring at her. Now Ms Erica or you yourself would likely be capable of leaving it there, and might be restored to good humour by going to watch Messrs Rhone and Ophian making out in the corner or a Henry Tilney Impersonation Competition or the relatively low investment of continued company until the possibility of threat had dissipated. So far, so good. But Ms Marcel would likely escalate, sending Mr Horton to beat Dr Sean up or throw him out, and demanding that others rally to her cause and that everybody saw the offence; should Messrs Rhone and Ophian claim to have been too busy making out in the corner to see anything, she'd label them Rape Apologists and try to get them kicked out as well.

Venn should be acknowledged for reigniting the long gone and much maligned “Party Line.”

Hunter @163: Yes, poor Oodle. All he did was repeatedly fail to answer the question of whether he thought drunk adults had more right to touch children than children had to not be touched. Call the waambulance for that poor victim.

And would you mind pointing out these "calls for street justice"? The only mention of such a course of action that I saw was Surfrat @12, in words that suggested s/he knew this was wishful thinking. I did see several instances of the "benefit of the doubt" crowd lobbing accusations of lynching, etc, at people who supported the "protect the child" side, but that seemed a straw man, as the "protect the child" side only advocated keeping the child away from the creeper, or in one case (Lava @139) calling the police, in the case of allegations of actual sexual assault. So, yes, if you can provide some evidence (as Fissile is so fond of) of "calls for street justice" I'd be very interested to read them.

@161 WoofCandy - "I'd say the opposite of joining a mob is standing up for the person who is being unfairly persecuted by it."

Genuine question here: who is the unfairly persecuted person here right now? Because I honestly don't see a mob. What I see here is that most people share an opinion (i.e. it's not okay to touch someone, especially children, and make them uncomfortable) and are defending that opinion against a minority who say that it's not a big deal, that LW1 is hypervigilant and possibly exaggerated or lied about the seriousness of the situation, and that we should be skeptical of someone who says someone touched them inappropriately unless they can offer solid proof. When that minority has been asked to defend their opinion, instead of responding, they say "no YOU're stupid!" and leave. So far Don't Tess with Mexas and yourself have been exceptions to that rule (I do not count Hunger78, since he seems to be a fairly longtime contrarian around here). Look through the comments yourself - regardless of position, most of them further the discussion, rather than screaming insults and profanities or threats, which would be more indicative of a mob mentality on the Internet. So, again, where exactly is the mob and who is being unfairly persecuted here?

I seriously doubt anyone here sees anything wrong with being skeptical when a story doesn't add up. There are plenty of times in this column when a letter was published and people thought something was off about the way the story was presented. The problem the majority here sees is when you *start* with a skeptical mindset a la Oodletrend and fissileone. When you come into a situation looking for holes, of course you're going to find them, even if you have to make them up to do so, like when Oodletrend suggested that LW1 is simply a hypervigilant mom who overreacted, despite having to twist her words to "prove" it. There's a difference between thinking "this seems to be holding up until it doesn't" and "pics or it didn't happen" while listening to someone relate a story. Even DTWM has admitted that this particular letter doesn't seem fishy in any way, despite her contention that one should be wary of such a stories because people lie and exaggerate (on a side note, I would be interested to know if she finds any of the stories here in the comments, posted by myself or others, to be lies or exaggerated).

That is the attitude that the majority here are having an issue with - that a story like LW1's should be scrutinized for inconsistencies and pass some kind of test before being pronounced plausible, and therefore worthy of taking some kind of action against (like telling a child that it's not okay for an adult to make them uncomfortable). The big irony in all of this is that people (WoofCandy yourself included) are lamenting "whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty," which implies that the person who is telling the story is a liar until proven otherwise. Shouldn't the victims be given the same benefit of the doubt as the perpetrators, at the very least? That's what's so maddening - that, by giving the perpetrator the benefit of the doubt from the beginning, you are assuming that the victim is a liar. And being predisposed to thinking that one party is lying from the get-go isn't exactly giving both sides a fair hearing.

@150 Don't Tess with Mexas - "If I ignore those feelings, what I'm really saying is that signaling my support for women is more important than being a truthful, honest human being"

You make it sound like being a woman and a truthful, honest human being are two mutually exclusive things. I don't believe all of the stories in this comment thread because they were written by women, I believe them because, well, they sound plausible. One commenter mentioned being groped against his will, and I believe him too. And that's because, to me, the storyteller is innocent of being a liar until proven guilty, regardless of gender. To reiterate what I wrote in the previous paragraph, shouldn't victims also be considered "innocent until proven guilty" of lying/exaggerating, or is that just for the perpetrators?

By the way, I'm Asian - how do I fit into your argument that sexual assault and race are implicitly linked in this country? I could you tell about the time a guy on a motorcycle made a lewd comment to me that had nothing to do with my race, if you like? I'm guessing you're from Texas, and if so I can see why the Emmett Till case might be on your mind, but considering that had more to do with racial issues than sexual assault, I'm not sure why it's particularly relevant here. The lynchers didn't take the white woman's word for it because she was a woman, it was because she was white and he was black, and that was all the excuse they needed to torture and murder him.

@Jina: Genuine question here: who is the unfairly persecuted person here right now?

The mob thread started with BiDanFan imploring:

Why not just BELIEVE people when they say they have been abused?

Tess offered a number of reasons, one of which is "I don't join mobs," and mobs, as history has repeatedly demonstrated, are a natural consequence of BiDanFan's attitude.

If the alleged abuse needs police response than yes WoifCandy, there is a need to be careful.
No mob here suggested this guy in this letter needed police involvement. An individual may have suggested some physical harm, no mob joined that cry.
You and hunter and the other two men who hurried off, wtf are your problems. Such little respect for women I'm guessing. Thinking we are just a bunch of liars who make such a mountain out of men's innocent words and actions. she

This wasn't a mob thread and you know it.
I'm sorry a few women have lied re sexual abuse. A few. To discount the majority because of the few is the same reasoning trump et al use. Ban all Muslims because some are terrorists.
Well fuck you WoofCandy and you trying to invalidate the experiences shared here this week. Fuck you.

Don't you guys get it? Yet? Women don't want your attentions unless they want your attentions.
We don't want our girl children to grow up and have to deal with the same old same old bullshit story. Keep your hands and words to yourselves. If a woman is interested in you, she'll let you know.

@170 WoofCandy - you haven't answered my question. I didn't ask how this mob started, I asked who the persecuted victim is. And I'll add to that - who is part of this mob? There's no anonymous posting here. All of our names are right below our posts, so you can clearly see who is waving the pitchforks and torches.

You say that BiDanFan's words are calling for a mob. So, again, who has joined that mob so far? Or are you saying BiDanFan is a one-person mob (BiDanFan, if you are, do you do parties? I'd love to see you in action :D)? Again, what I see here is a large percentage of people who agree on a topic for the most part, not a mob. I don't even see anyone here telling dissenters to shut up or go away or running them off with insult and vitriol - on the contrary, people are asking them to continue posting and clarify their positions. That's how discussion works, not a mob.

You also said "mobs, as history has repeatedly demonstrated, are a natural consequence of BiDanFan's attitude."

So you are basically saying that 1) mobs are a bad thing. 2) BiDanFan's attitude causes mobs. According to BiDanFan's words that you quoted, 3) BiDanFan's "attitude" is that victims of abuse deserve to be believed. The logical conclusion to this is that you believe that believing people who claim to be abused is a bad thing because it causes the creation of mobs. Therefore, we shouldn't believe people who report being abused. Please feel free to correct this if it is wrong, but that's what I get from your post.

I read an article just yesterday - you can look it up, it was in the Fresno Bee - that reported that a local man was sentenced to 1,503 years in prison after he was convicted of raping his daughter 2-3 times per week for four years, starting when she was 16. The abuse stopped because she moved away to get away from him. During his trial, he wrote a letter to the judge, saying that his daughter lied on the stand and that her testimony should be thrown out as hearsay, and that it was her fault he was in this predicament (i.e. being on trial as an accused rapist). How is your opinion different from this man's?

I'll amend my previous post a little - okay, some people have told others to eff off. I forgot about that. Still doesn't constitute a "mob," though.

Why do you try to placate these men who refuse to hear that women are in PAIN, Jina.
And yes. I'm not a mob and I stand by my f...offs to these men. I don't know why they are even here, patriarchal pieces of shit that they are.

@Jina: I didn't ask how this mob started, I asked who the persecuted victim is.

I think there's been a misunderstanding - there was a discussion about mobs, but I don't think anyone is claiming there's a mob happening right here and now.

(That said, if someone were to call LavaGirl an angry mob of one, I wouldn't argue.)

It seems my post @170 would be clearer you replaced "The mob thread" with "The thread about mobs."

I'm not angry WoofCandy. I'm disgusted. With you. With hunter. With those other men.
You took this discussion along with others in a direction it didn't need to go in and you IMPLIED, don't try and jump ship now, that a mob mentality was at play here on this thread.
None of you showed any horror at the stories shared. Or concern. Or compassion. Don't you see that that is part of the problem?
I'm disgusted that this conversation even needs to happen on Dan's site. Why are you guys even here? Go over to a men's rights site. There you'll find all your brothers in arms.

Okay, so how is this a discussion about mobs, then? Because the first mention of mobs that I can recall is when Don't Tess with Mexas said "I don't join mobs" or something like that. BiDanFan's post was nothing about "let's go find some pedos and get em!" so I fail to see how her words naturally lead to the formation of mobs (your words, not mine).

Scrolling back a bit and looking, it looks like you turned this into a thread about mobs by going off on a tangent - basically "children can totally form mobs, sometimes even helped by their adoring parents!" But that's not what we were talking about here. We were talking about children telling their parents that an adult touched them in a way that made them uncomfortable, and what that adult should do in response. We were also talking about how common it is for people, girls and women in particular, to not know what to do if something happens, and how difficult it is for them to get support. What does any of this have to do with mobs, except for DTWM implying that a group of people believing someone's story is a mob? (maybe you didn't mean to, DTWM, but that's certainly how I interpreted your "I don't join mobs" comment)

Yeah unfortunately hunter you will be here next week. Sprouting your special brand of stupid. Another 70 yr old man like trump who just doesn't get the hint to fuck off somewhere, because no amount of talking will ever turn men like you into decent human beings.

@176 Lavagirl - oh, I'm not trying to placate them. I don't have any problem with you or any of the others here who told people to eff off. I was just trying to be fair, since I had said that no one had told them to eff off and I was wrong about that. Sorry if it sounded like I was trying to point you out or anything, that wasn't my intention. :)

Honestly, I mostly added that because I don't want to give people an excuse to latch on to so they can storm off without further discussion. If they storm off, it should be because they're out of arguments, not because they have an easy out of saying I'm a meanie or a liar or less than fair to them.

Jina darling. These guys have no leg to stand on. You are wasting your breath trying to be fair and just.
It's like how All Lives Matter tries to take attention away from Black Lives Matter.
It's all smoke screens, so they don't have to really look at themselves and see a man like trump reflected back.

I see a divide and a misunderstanding between those who seem to feel that believing a violation (especially of a child) requires people to track down the perpetrator and punish them, versus those who say that it only requires a compassionate expression of sympathy and any necessary assistance in avoiding the perpetrator.

Depending on the circumstances, and the listener's position, believing the story may also require alerting authorities about the accusation -- but it never requires mob action.

Still, if one's instinct is to form a mob if one believed the story, then I can see why people resist believing until they see proof. But instead, maybe consider that you could express sympathy for the violation without that leading to any kind of mob.

@Jina: I've taken care to specify who I'm replying to in my comments, so if you're actually interested in this particular conversation, I'd suggest reading the whole thing rather than looking at pieces in isolation. If you still don't see where I'm coming from, I'm not sure what more to say.

It's typical for conversations about these letters to go in different directions, and there's no reason separate conversations can't coexist. If you want to talk about something else, go for it.

@EricaP: Even if you're agenda is purely one of caregiving, would you really cast aside any doubts you might have about an accuser's story? Wouldn't you want to know the truth, if only to determine what kind of care the accuser needs?

WoofCandy @186

First, I'm going to separate out a child accusing one of its parents from all the other cases.

In all other cases, my first priority as the parent, is to help my child avoid being alone with the person who makes them feel uncomfortable.

Once that principle is well established, yes, of course I will discuss with my kid if they might benefit from talking to a therapist. And after we've found a therapist they like, I might ask them if they have any more information they want to give me. Depending on what my kid wants, we might go to the police and open an official investigation, or not.

I wouldn't think that I myself was capable of sorting out the truth, though. I have two teens, and contrary to what BiDanFan suggests @142, I know my children are capable of making up convincing stories. So I wouldn't do concrete harm to someone else based only on my child's word. But I can help my child avoid that other person, without harming anyone. And I will.

Even if my child is delusional, or wants to be away from the other person because they smell bad, or are unpopular, or rejected my child's sexual advances -- no matter what the underlying cause, that's still no reason to force my child to spend time alone with anyone against their will. The underlying issue will probably come out through therapy, and there's no need for me to set myself up as a detective, a role for which I have no training and no inclination.

Now: a child accusing their other parent is a different matter. (As I stated at the top of this post.) Parental rights can't be ended based only on the child's word. So then I would go straight to individual and family therapy, and figure out what's appropriate with the help of professionals.

Most kids can make up convincing stories, Erica. But sexual assault? You really think your kids would lie about that to you. Wow.

To answer your question Fan, if my children ever came to me and made accusations about sexual assault, I would believe them immediately. Even if that accusation was against their father. No way do I think my kids would ever lie about such a serious issue.

@82 Escapee from S. Idaho: Holy shit! How did I miss your spot on comment?!?
Please forgive me, as this is why I come back late afterwards to re-read what was said and responded to in the weekly Savage Love comment thread.
YES, "good guys": how about it? These Trump apologist assholes make you look equally bad every time you remain silent and look the other way. Good, decent, non-abusive, non-rape-minded men out there--Speak up!!
I have broad shoulders a V shape, long slender arms, hands, legs and feet. But because I am wide on top and big boned (my ribcage and hip bones are highly visible)--despite actually weighing my ideal weight, many people still consider me fat. Many unloving people I was raised by my parents to love and respect that don't offer the same mutually in return.
I did not assert myself and my needs more often, and I am dealing with doing so now at this point in my life.
So I have put this to my advantage. I use direct eye contact more often. Best way to spot a potentially abusive rape-minded sociopath apologist for the putrid evil that is Donald Trump and his followers.
Speak calmly and softly. Do not raise your voice. Abusers (either gender) live to intimidate and start fights. They live, amazingly, for the agony of death to planet Earth, WWIII, billion dollar explosions, 9.0 earthquakes, nuclear meltdowns, floods, famine, plagues, stock market crashes---and toasters hurled at their faces on Black Friday.
I have been to Take Back the Night rallies. My own composed music was featured. Fellow women wept, who were enrolled in the local Displaced Homemaker program a county away from my home. Because I have experienced their pain, too.
I don't date, and after enduring a toxic marriage for 9 years too long, have no desire to remarry. Ever. Again.
This is not out of hatred or animosity. I have simply grown re-accustomed to living single, waking up in my own bed, eating when I'm hungry, getting a drink when I'm thirsty. I prefer
to dine in the dining rooms of restaurants rather than in the bar--too noisy, and, being a musician I have sensitive ears.
Every day I wake up in my own bed is indeed, a blessing.

From what I have seen and witnessed it appears that those most likely to form mobs are the rape-minded sociopaths and their apologists. If there is a sharp rise in misogyny nationally and globally, it would probably be due to an even sharper decrease in women engaging in heterosexual intercourse.
Men and boys----what are you so afraid of about us that makes you so violently desecrate half the human race since time memorial??

@141 BiDanFan: Thank you for your kind response. Sorry I am so late in responding. I am still dealing with ugly memories of my service years; seeing a good local therapist specializing in military service connected PTSD in addition to my continued musical pursuits is helping greatly.

@EricaP: I don't think my immediate, overt reaction would be much different than yours.

I think our internal worlds may differ though. In the rare case where the story just wasn't adding up, or I suspected my child was being manipulated by an adult, or repeating things he/she heard from another child who had been molested, or it implicated a family member who I know, as much as I can know anything, was incapable of this, I just couldn't pretend to myself otherwise, and the rawest of my instincts would tell me that pretending would, in the long term, only exacerbate the harm. How that instinct would actually play out, I have no idea.

WoofCandy @192: "it implicated a family member who I know, as much as I can know anything, was incapable of this"

I'd be interested to know how you would know someone was incapable of molestation. From what I've heard, there is no way to know.

Molestation is common, and perpetrators act just like everyone else, except when they are alone with their victim. So the fact that your child just implicated that person should tip the balance from whether they are merely a possible molester (like everyone else you know) to being a probable molester. It still isn't proven, but your natural tendency to want to protect your spouse, your other child, your sibling, your parent, or a family friend is going to make it hard to understand the vague hints your child may provide.

I don't honestly care if you actually believe, deep in your heart. I hope you would act as if you believed your child, because the science shows that's a good bet. And what's the harm in supervising their interactions with a person who they say makes them feel uncomfortable?

https://www.nsopw.gov/en-US/Education/Fa…

>> A common presumption is that children will give one detailed, clear account of abuse. This is not consistent with research; disclosures often unfold gradually and may be presented in a series of hints. Children might imply something has happened to them without directly stating they were sexually abused—they may be testing the reaction to their “hint.” If they are ready, children may then follow with a larger hint if they think it will be handled well. It is easy to miss hints of disclosure of abuse.

>> Disclosure of sexual abuse is often delayed; children often avoid telling because they are either afraid of a negative reaction from their parents or of being harmed by the abuser. As such, they often delay disclosure until adulthood. Males tend not to report their victimization, which may affect statistics. Current research lacks systematic evidence that false allegations are common. Recantations of abuse are also uncommon.

>> An estimated 60% of perpetrators of sexual abuse are known to the child but are not family members, e.g., family friends, babysitters, child care providers, neighbors. About 30% of perpetrators of child sexual abuse are family members. Only about 10% of perpetrators of child sexual abuse are strangers to the child. >>

There's also some great advice here:
https://www.cybertip.ca/pdfs/C3P_ChildSe…

It explains how grooming works, where the perpetrator “builds trust with the child and the adults around a child in an effort to gain access to and time alone with her/him”

It has a good list of hints of disclosure, as when a child says “What do you think of ____?” or “____ does not pay attention to me anymore” or “I don’t want to go to ____’s house anymore” or “I don’t like ____ anymore” or “You’ll be mad at me.”

And a good discussion of how to support children if they disclose:

“Listen: What a child needs when disclosing is for you to listen. S/he fears an adult’s reaction as well as not being believed. It takes incredible courage to share such an experience. Listen attentively.”

Other tips: "Do not over- or underreact...Take it seriously...Respect the child’s need for confidentiality...Show warmth and caring...Tell the child that you will take quick action to stop the abuse. Avoid making promises [that you] will make sure the offender goes to jail.”

@Woofcandy The one carping about mobs is you. You're the one who keeps bringing it up and then keeps using it as a bizarre way to deflect. I get the feeling that when you say 'mob' what you really mean is 'people who aren't agreeing with me'.

Look just have the balls to state that you think all women are liars, all children are liars, and men should have carte blanche to rape, abuse and murder at their whim.

Yeah it's a sick belief but at least you'd be willing to OWN it.

Better go grab your pom-poms Rapist Cheerleader.

Jina @174: I get what Woof was saying @170. Not that I started a mob, but that my alleged attitude of always believing all accusations of abuse (which is not my attitude; it's disappointing to have to clarify, but these "it all started with BDF" pull quotes were, in fact, responses to Oodletrend's "skeptical" reaction to a letter which even DTWM himself agreed was completely plausible) had, in the past, led to angry mobs lynching innocent black men without trial because a white woman had made up a rape story.

Which has in fact happened. It's just a huge stretch to get there from "we should not force children to have unwanted contact with adults."

You're right that the previous discussion of "mobs" had implied "you people are ganging up on us." So I am glad Woof clarified what he meant by mobs.

There were quite a few "fuck offs" from both sides.

Hunter @179: Oodletrend implied that adults have more right to touch children than children have to not be touched way back in his first post, when he called the shopper's grasping the child's arm "a harmless gesture" and the mother's reaction "completely over- and misinterpreted." And no, I don't think most of us go around wanting to touch strangers. We want to touch people we feel affectionate towards. We should confine that to people who also feel affectionate towards us.

Woof @186: You refer to "having doubts." This is not the situation I've been talking about. Obviously if a story doesn't add up, or your instincts tell you something is dubious, then further investigation is certainly warranted. By "instincts" I don't mean a gut reaction of "X could never do a thing like that!" Because people certainly do. And of course, as Erica says, the burden of evidence is far higher to take action such as going to the police than it is for just deciding to find a different babysitter or make sure you're always there when Uncle Fred is around.

Any child who alleges abuse should probably get counselling; and a counsellor should have the expertise to determine whether they are making the story up.

Fan, Tess is a woman.
If one of my kids reported sexual abuse to me, or I unearthed it ( thank you Erica for your readings), I'd surely get my child to go see someone. First, I'd front the bastard, just to let them know I was onto him/ her and that police wouldn't be far behind.
Either you believe your kid or you fucking don't. End of story.

Jina, I think you did an admirable job, rational and on point. I got sick of Doing my argument to people who seem to freak the fuck out when a woman has a rational mind. And couples that with her functioning heart. Jumps here and there.

I must remember if we ever broach these sensitive topics again, and women open up with their pain, to just ignore the male commenters altogether UNLESS they show they have been hearing one fucking word, or rather reading them here, for gods sake, for how many years now?
Thick or what.

Grizelda, sorry I haven't got back to you. My email fills up with fetlife posts, they are a busy lot, and I lose emails. I'll climb down and find yours.
And get back to you. My mother is sick, and I've been hiding out more than usual. I don't know how people survive without bouts of solitude.

Lava: DTWM's initial post @104
"[F]uck off if you think the experience of being vulnerable and having your boundaries broken is uniquely or especially female. We've ALL been children, and most of us have been victimized at some point, whether sexually or otherwise"
made me think that they were male.

Sorry to hear your mother is unwell. Hugs.

A latter post, she talked of abuse. Thanks.
To all if you beautiful women who shared their hearts here this week, big hug, a warm one, it was hot today, from Australia.

Mexas also talked about being beat up by a group of kids, and lying about one of them having a weapon because they didn't want to appear weak -- that sounds like a male experience rather than a female one. All the talk of racism and lynching, I am guessing Mexas is a black man. But then they referred to "my tribe (women)". Guess it doesn't really matter, but if Mexas were indeed a black male that would explain the jump from "believing victims" to "mob mentality."

LG @197 sometimes it's one child implicating their older sibling. So then it would be one of your children's word against the other one's.

If I got hints something was going on, I would believe my kid is hurting and needs my help. I'd give them my attention and my help. I would not immediately confront the other person, and I certainly wouldn't kick that person in the balls (@100). I would listen to my kid and try to provide the (non-violent) support they need.

BiDanFan I don't agree with your claim that black men are especially likely to leap from "believing victims" to "mob mentality," and I find it offensive.

As I said @184, I think it's more likely that people who leap from "believing victims" to imagining mobs are those who believe in community responsibility to punish perpetrators as soon as possible. They are themselves picturing joining a mob, so their standard of proof before they would do so is going to be metric ton higher than those who simply picture listening to someone's story, expressing sympathy, and offering assistance in avoiding the alleged perpetrator.

@185 WoofCandy - "@Jina: I've taken care to specify who I'm replying to in my comments, so if you're actually interested in this particular conversation, I'd suggest reading the whole thing rather than looking at pieces in isolation. If you still don't see where I'm coming from, I'm not sure what more to say."

Hmm, I could do that. I could go through the 200+ responses here and copy and paste each of your responses and address them one by one. But considering you haven't bothered to respond (except to say "no, that's not what I meant. You misunderstood; read it again!") to any of the lengthy posts that I wrote, and put a lot of time and thought into when I should have been working, I don't think I will, since you won't extend me the same courtesy.

@197 Lavagirl - thanks! :) Hugs to you too!

EricaP @201: Sorry, but you're wrong. DTWM instigated the entire "mob" discussion @104 by stating "I don't join mobs, no matter how righteous they think they are." (Emphasis mine)

And how is it offensive to state that a member of a group which has in the past unfairly suffered from a certain type of persecution would be more likely to consider that type of persecution than people who have not? I have white privilege, and that possibility never occurred to me.

BiDanFan, DTWM says they don't join mobs, yes, but I find that implausible. Or rather, I think the reason they (and others) want a very high standard of proof is because they think they ought to join a mob against any actual predators. Good thing for them very few predators ever reach their standard of proof.

Me, I don't need a high standard of proof, because I'm not planning on punishing or harming the accused.

It's offensive to guess someone's race because they show awareness of the horrific crimes white people committed. Every US citizen should understand about the history of lynching -- that's key to a minimal understanding of American history.

@197 LavaGirl: I am so sorry to hear about our mother's illness. I hope she feels better soon.
Sending big hugs, positrons, and VW beeps!

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/10/6/…

PLEASE READ THIS ARTICLE ABOUT TRUMP'S TRAFFICKING OF UNDERAGE MODELS AND SHARE WIDELY!