Fundie Child Molesters

[RR88]

Anyone hear about this situation?

nytimes.com/2012/05/17/nyregion/supporters-clash-at-event-for-ultra-orthodox-man-accused-of-sexual-assault.html?_r=2

[hoipolloi]

I hadn't seen this latest article (thanks) but this issue has previously gotten some coverage, on NPR among other places: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... d=99913807

[gustava]

I did a cursory search to see if I could find a statistical comparison between fundamentalist sex abusers and the general population. Might anyone offer search suggestions?

[tropaka]

I would imagine the percentage is the about the same but with less reporting of it.

[2xx1xy1JD]

I did a cursory search to see if I could find a statistical comparison between fundamentalist sex abusers and the general population. Might anyone offer search suggestions?

I don't know of any data that would be statistically meaningful.

IMO, a more meaningful comparison would be between treatment of disclosure in fundie circles vs. the general population.

You can compare written policies on disclosure and mandatory reporting. You can compare training given to staff. You can compare what kids are taught. You can compare institutional efforts to resist mandatory reporting requirements and judicial investigations. You can compare the ways in which institutions have dealt with disclosures. You can compare the ways in which victims (and their families) are treated.

Sexual predators can exist anywhere. What makes a difference is whether kids are given tools so that the abuse can be reported, and whether they are supported or rejected upon reporting. I've seen too many cases where the reaction resulted in even more damage being done (child being rejected by family and bouncing through foster care, attempts to bully family members, etc.).

[RR88]

I wonder if we'll ever see an age in which those who report Orthodox Jewish sexual predators aren't referred to as "mosrim" (traitors).

[gardenvarietycitizen]

Yep. There's a huge heated thread going on about it over on the mommy forum.

What strikes me about the various people saying "don't take sides!!!" (while being happy to imply nasty things about the girl) is that so many of them are saying, well, she was rebellious. She repeatedly violated unspoken community norms. She was "at risk" (a word with quite a bit of baggage on these sites). So of course a certain segment of people is willing to believe that she must have made it up, or that, well, these things happen to girls like that. Just very, very, creepy.

It's good to see many people there upset at that take though.

But the "how can you believe this girl (this "at risk" girl) over a well respected community member??" ones are just creepy - for the "never believe a woman over a man" vibe as much as anything else (and that poster got called on it).

As a bunch of people pointed out though too, the various rules about not being in a closed room with a member of the opposite sex would prevent a lot of this sort of thing - and in fact plenty of secular places have rules like that for teachers/staff/counselors/whatever (and not restricting it to opposite sex either), completely apart from any religious beliefs. Heck, it provides a defense against any actual false slanders, too!

[Glass Cowcatcher]

What strikes me about the various people saying "don't take sides!!!" (while being happy to imply nasty things about the girl) is that so many of them are saying, well, she was rebellious. She repeatedly violated unspoken community norms. She was "at risk" (a word with quite a bit of baggage on these sites). So of course a certain segment of people is willing to believe that she must have made it up, or that, well, these things happen to girls like that. Just very, very, creepy....But the "how can you believe this girl (this "at risk" girl) over a well respected community member??" ones are just creepy - for the "never believe a woman over a man" vibe as much as anything else (and that poster got called on it).

I think in cases like this, there is a tendency to assume that the man is automatically guilty (duke rape scandle?) but implying that a girl deserved to be raped, or that it was implicitly her fault because she violated community norms, is pathetic.

[celestial]

I did a cursory search to see if I could find a statistical comparison between fundamentalist sex abusers and the general population. Might anyone offer search suggestions?

I don't have any statistically significant data to give, but here's some anecdata for you: My uncle was a fundie, and it came out that he was molesting his eldest daughter and the neighbor girl. He is now in prison.

[doggie]

Myself fundies make the people they molest suffer so much when they are caught that it just gets worse. the blame of the person the molest is staggering. You have this walking anal baby and here is his wife who may even have known about it condemning the parents of the children he raped.

http://www.clickorlando.com/news/FBI-Ce ... index.html

[emmiedahl]

Yep. There's a huge heated thread going on about it over on the mommy forum.

What strikes me about the various people saying "don't take sides!!!" (while being happy to imply nasty things about the girl) is that so many of them are saying, well, she was rebellious. She repeatedly violated unspoken community norms. She was "at risk" (a word with quite a bit of baggage on these sites). So of course a certain segment of people is willing to believe that she must have made it up, or that, well, these things happen to girls like that. Just very, very, creepy.

It's good to see many people there upset at that take though.

But the "how can you believe this girl (this "at risk" girl) over a well respected community member??" ones are just creepy - for the "never believe a woman over a man" vibe as much as anything else (and that poster got called on it).

As a bunch of people pointed out though too, the various rules about not being in a closed room with a member of the opposite sex would prevent a lot of this sort of thing - and in fact plenty of secular places have rules like that for teachers/staff/counselors/whatever (and not restricting it to opposite sex either), completely apart from any religious beliefs. Heck, it provides a defense against any actual false slanders, too!

Reading that made me sick. The girl was rebellious because (as they report it) she asked a lot of questions in religion class. Someone else pointed out that a girl who wears nail polish might be considered rebellious in her community. Other victims have come forward, and the accused broke Jewish law by being along with a female for hours at a time. He even took her on a private trip. That is sketchy as hell even by non-charedi standards. He is not even a real therapist, just a guy who charges $150 an hour to talk to troubled kids.

That is the perfect job for a child molester. No licensing, so he can act immorally without losing a license. The children he talks to are already considered rebellious or mentally ill by the community, so no one will believe them. He can justify being along for hours with them, no interruptions, and the school has forced parents to send their child to him *during the school day when they should be in class* by threatening expulsion. Humbert Humbert could not have devised a better situation for abuse.

[margiebargie]

I did a cursory search to see if I could find a statistical comparison between fundamentalist sex abusers and the general population. Might anyone offer search suggestions?

I read a really good article over at the SNAP website once. She used data from insurance companies to estimate rates of abuse between denominations.