has Sandusky made you more scared

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think as parents the worst thing we can do is to assume that we can spot pedophiles before they harm our children. It's very easy to identify a child abuser in hindsight. Most abusers are well known to the victim and trusted. Many abusers are people in positions of respect or authority. The parents of many abused children knew the abusers, talked to them both before and during the abuse and they didn't see the signs. Sandusky does not make me more afraid and I don't suspect everyone as a potential abuser.

To protect my child, I am vigilant about who has access to my the child in my absence, I tell my child about physical boundaries and, very importantly, that no matter what happens with them I will always listen and I will always protect them.

That's very wise of you. Unless you yourself have been a victim of a pedophile, you can't always expect to be able to spot one, even in hindsight. Good for you for acknowledging your shortcomings as a protector of your child.

[Anonymous]

Obligatory plug for protecting the gift here.

I think no, because I'm paranoid about abuse anyway and - here's something really controversial - I'm not afraid of pedophiles, I'm afraid of unreported child abuse. Let me explain that. It's really difficult to "spot" a pedophile. You can talk precautions, plenty of them. But it is possible for someone to target your child. The issue is that most parents never ASK their children about child abuse. Has anyone ever actually ASKED their child if someone has touched them?Noone, right.

The thing is: the psychological evidence shows that children who are abducted and raped by a stranger in a one off event have BETTER psychological outcomes than people abused in less "violent" ways by people at home. In other words, if someone did - heaven forbid - molest your child, as long as you caught it quickly, therapy, emotional space etc, your child would probably be ok. It's the deception, shame, and moral ambiguity of when a loved authority figure is molesting that is actually more damaging.

So like I said, very careful to take precautions but also teach about boundaries and most importantly ASK. Always ask and make sure that it's clear you will NEVER get into trouble.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Obligatory plug for protecting the gift here.

I think no, because I'm paranoid about abuse anyway and - here's something really controversial - I'm not afraid of pedophiles, I'm afraid of unreported child abuse. Let me explain that. It's really difficult to "spot" a pedophile. You can talk precautions, plenty of them. But it is possible for someone to target your child. The issue is that most parents never ASK their children about child abuse. Has anyone ever actually ASKED their child if someone has touched them?Noone, right.

The thing is: the psychological evidence shows that children who are abducted and raped by a stranger in a one off event have BETTER psychological outcomes than people abused in less "violent" ways by people at home. In other words, if someone did - heaven forbid - molest your child, as long as you caught it quickly, therapy, emotional space etc, your child would probably be ok. It's the deception, shame, and moral ambiguity of when a loved authority figure is molesting that is actually more damaging.

So like I said, very careful to take precautions but also teach about boundaries and most importantly ASK. Always ask and make sure that it's clear you will NEVER get into trouble.

My experience was the opposite. I've been unfortunate enough to experience both and nothing changes you quite like the fear of imminent death at the hands of a stranger.

[Anonymous]

^^
I'm not doubting your experience but it is possible that the confluence of the two rendered both more traumatic? For example, the fact that both events happened suggests at least one other independent cause (inattentive/neglectful parents).

I think the issue is that people get PTSD and are changed by one off assaults, but abuse tends to exist within toxic/neglectful families so 1)spotting abuse and 2) getting appropriate treatment is unlikely.

[Anonymous]

I have heard that many times continuous molestation as a child leads to continued victimization by others as an adult.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Obligatory plug for protecting the gift here.

I think no, because I'm paranoid about abuse anyway and - here's something really controversial - I'm not afraid of pedophiles, I'm afraid of unreported child abuse. Let me explain that. It's really difficult to "spot" a pedophile. You can talk precautions, plenty of them. But it is possible for someone to target your child. The issue is that most parents never ASK their children about child abuse. Has anyone ever actually ASKED their child if someone has touched them?Noone, right.

The thing is: the psychological evidence shows that children who are abducted and raped by a stranger in a one off event have BETTER psychological outcomes than people abused in less "violent" ways by people at home. In other words, if someone did - heaven forbid - molest your child, as long as you caught it quickly, therapy, emotional space etc, your child would probably be ok. It's the deception, shame, and moral ambiguity of when a loved authority figure is molesting that is actually more damaging.

So like I said, very careful to take precautions but also teach about boundaries and most importantly ASK. Always ask and make sure that it's clear you will NEVER get into trouble.

My experience was the opposite. I've been unfortunate enough to experience both and nothing changes you quite like the fear of imminent death at the hands of a stranger.

Not the PP, but I think a crucial addendum to PPs statement is that the affects of violent crimes (or acute trauma) can often be mediated by skillful and loving caregiving (or healthy attachment). The same is true in adulthood, btw. But unfortunately, many people don't have loved ones that skillfully respond to traumatic incidents - and when this doesn't happen, the chances that a child (or adult) will be "okay" after experiencing a traumatic event are greatly reduced.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Note the tense: I said "could be" a threat.

This thread started with the question: Does Sandusky make you afraid?

My view: Yes, and he should. Because he was a guy everyone would have trusted with their kid.

In other words, you can't spot 'em. Which means anyone could be a threat. When that great guy offers to take your son to Disneyworld, ask yourself why?

I very respectfully and kindly beg to differ: I would absolutely not have trusted my kid with Sandusky. You CAN spot 'em. Have better faith in your "gut" feelings about people.

Not the PP you are responding to but what is it about Sandusky that would have alerted you to him being a pedophile? Sixth sense? Honestly curious.

No, not sixth sense. I'm a linguistics grad student, and my research covers all kinds of language - verbal and body language. So his manner wouldn't necessarily have signaled "pedophile." (Well, in one video it appears to do just that, but let's set that aside.) It does signals a problem. In some videos, his verbal and body language appears "normal." It signals considerable nervousness, esp. when he discusses his charity, but he could be a nervous, high strung person, I don't know him well enough to make this judgment. In others, it's problematic; he's ingratiating in ways that don't match his ostensible position, he overdoes it, especially, again, when talking about his charity work, which is, of course, the crux of the problem. His manner doesn't make sense in light of who he's supposed to be. Does this make sense?

I find this very interesting, and I wonder if you'd be willing to post a clip along with your analysis to demonstrate more what you mean. I'm just curious about your field.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^^
I'm not doubting your experience but it is possible that the confluence of the two rendered both more traumatic? For example, the fact that both events happened suggests at least one other independent cause (inattentive/neglectful parents).

I think the issue is that people get PTSD and are changed by one off assaults, but abuse tends to exist within toxic/neglectful families so 1)spotting abuse and 2) getting appropriate treatment is unlikely.

My arents weren't inattentive or neglectful. They dealt with the molestation by a family friend swiftly and as thoroughly as directed by police. The second, more violent incident was not preventable. I was much older (12) and understood the risks while it was happening. Who can begin to imagine that a complete stranger is going to break into the house and assault your child while you sleep? I just have bad luck.

If my parents hold any blame, it is that they didn't put me in therapy asap.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My experience was the opposite. I've been unfortunate enough to experience both and nothing changes you quite like the fear of imminent death at the hands of a stranger.

Not the PP, but I think a crucial addendum to PPs statement is that the affects of violent crimes (or acute trauma) can often be mediated by skillful and loving caregiving (or healthy attachment). The same is true in adulthood, btw. But unfortunately, many people don't have loved ones that skillfully respond to traumatic incidents - and when this doesn't happen, the chances that a child (or adult) will be "okay" after experiencing a traumatic event are greatly reduced.

I think this is accurate. I'm the PP and my parents were completely freaked out by what happened. They were unsure how to respond. I felt a certain level os responsibility to act like everything was fine so our family could get back to normal. It was traumatic for all of us.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have heard that many times continuous molestation as a child leads to continued victimization by others as an adult.

I agree.

It basically creates patterns of abuse that follow you into adulthood.

so very sad

[Anonymous]

Pp who made original statement here. I agree with all the additional comments. I think that good therapy probably is the difference. The problem is that parents are much more likely to get therapy for assault, v abuse. I think nowadays though therapy is less stigmatized and would really be routinely offered upon disclosure of anything. But relatively few child abuses are caught, see for eg Sandusky. Some of it may even be society. There is such horrific victim blaming that society only deems you truly blameless if its a stranger in the bushes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:curious.

No, not sixth sense. I'm a linguistics grad student, and my research covers all kinds of language - verbal and body language. So his manner wouldn't necessarily have signaled "pedophile." (Well, in one video it appears to do just that, but let's set that aside.) It does signals a problem. In some videos, his verbal and body language appears "normal." It signals considerable nervousness, esp. when he discusses his charity, but he could be a nervous, high strung person, I don't know him well enough to make this judgment. In others, it's problematic; he's ingratiating in ways that don't match his ostensible position, he overdoes it, especially, again, when talking about his charity work, which is, of course, the crux of the problem. His manner doesn't make sense in light of who he's supposed to be. Does this make sense?

I find this very interesting, and I wonder if you'd be willing to post a clip along with your analysis to demonstrate more what you mean. I'm just curious about your field.

PP, you can satisfy your curiosity about my field by studying books that have been published on the subject of forensic linguistics and, if you're interested in further exploring the field, universities offer courses and even degrees in forensic linguistics. I prefer not to post a close analysis of where Sandusky gives himself away, since I'd rather not post a "how not to" guide for pedophiles. My original post was intentionally general and omitted some key points for that reason. If you're interested in understanding Sandusky, specifically, videos of him are posted online, why don't you examine them?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:curious.

No, not sixth sense. I'm a linguistics grad student, and my research covers all kinds of language - verbal and body language. So his manner wouldn't necessarily have signaled "pedophile." (Well, in one video it appears to do just that, but let's set that aside.) It does signals a problem. In some videos, his verbal and body language appears "normal." It signals considerable nervousness, esp. when he discusses his charity, but he could be a nervous, high strung person, I don't know him well enough to make this judgment. In others, it's problematic; he's ingratiating in ways that don't match his ostensible position, he overdoes it, especially, again, when talking about his charity work, which is, of course, the crux of the problem. His manner doesn't make sense in light of who he's supposed to be. Does this make sense?

I find this very interesting, and I wonder if you'd be willing to post a clip along with your analysis to demonstrate more what you mean. I'm just curious about your field.

PP, you can satisfy your curiosity about my field by studying books that have been published on the subject of forensic linguistics and, if you're interested in further exploring the field, universities offer courses and even degrees in forensic linguistics. I prefer not to post a close analysis of where Sandusky gives himself away, since I'd rather not post a "how not to" guide for pedophiles. My original post was intentionally general and omitted some key points for that reason. If you're interested in understanding Sandusky, specifically, videos of him are posted online, why don't you examine them?

I can appreciate your reason for not posting. I'd rather not go through lots of videos of Sandusky trying to see what you mean (one video that was pointed out as a good example, yes, several videos that may or may not demonstrate what you're talking about, no. Gives me the creeps). Is there a particular book or books you'd recommend to someone with a casual interest in learning more about your field? Basically, nothing too technical?

[Anonymous]

The victims of Sandusky came from underpriveleged homes. Read: most likely single mom, potential for lack of job, drug/alcohol abuse, multiple children by multiple men... These children were likely not well provided for physically or emotionally at home. Parents were most likely inattentive/uninvolved.
Here enters the powerful father figure with $$$. Things start out small and innocent - taking them to local games. And over time, the perv established emotional control over the child, and rewards "good" (sex) behavior with gifts that become more and more lavish.
Could I have spotted this? Yes. If my child started coming home with computers, flying to different states for football games as a tween, etc. But my child would not have been targetd - in this situation.
Not all pervs are rich or ply with gifts. But I am and would be suspect of any man that wanted alone time with my child.

[Anonymous]

8:14: try Pamela Meyer's "Liespotting." An interesting read for the general public.