paladin
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 686
- Reaction score
- 1,146
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...ts-son-molester-bloody-pulp-article-1.1872584
The Mug Shot, its a nice start to a process
The Mug Shot, its a nice start to a process
Why would anyone allow a man to babysit? That is beyond stupid but doesn't excuse that POS. The "babysitter" deserved to be shot on the spot.
Why would anyone allow a man to babysit? That is beyond stupid but doesn't excuse that POS. The "babysitter" deserved to be shot on the spot.
What does the sitter being a man have to do with it?
I know it's a bit ignorant, but evidence shows that males are much more likely to be perpetrators of violence and especially sexual abuse. I just see it as playing it safe. Why chance it type of thing? Parents would be naive (my opinion) to not take that aspect into consideration. I would ask, what young male would actively seek to accompany young children? That would throw up immediate flags in my book.
You've never babysat for younger siblings, relatives?
I have
once
I discovered that googling "How do I make a infant stop crying" didn't solve the problem.
I still have flashbacks
Shooting is too easy. Beating him to a bloody pulp and bringing out some dull knives to cut "some" appendages is the way to go.........then followed by a shot
You have to read the article before passing judgement on why the kid was left under the young man's supervision. I've read it in detail and the young man, who was 18, btw, was a long time neighbor and family friend. Although when the dad left, the kid wasn't in the young man's care, but that changed while he was gone.
Either way, the dad won't be charged and he was able to get a bit of personal justice before calling the cops.
This made the rounds a couple days ago. My immediate comment then was "He missed a spot".
I read the article WG. Still an older male, regardless of their connection.
He was 18 and probably grew up around them, which meant, he was looked upon as another son, big brother, cousin. Either way, I don't agree with your stance. You should be careful of whose around your children no matter the gender.
That is true, but there is a much greater likelihood of sexual violence being perpetrated by males. It really is just that simple in my opinion. The majority of victims know their assailants, who are predominately male. Many developed positions of trust that allow them seamless access to their victims? If given the option...I would pick the female.
I know it's a bit ignorant, but evidence shows that males are much more likely to be perpetrators of violence and especially sexual abuse. I just see it as playing it safe. Why chance it type of thing? Parents would be naive (my opinion) to not take that aspect into consideration. I would ask, what young male would actively seek to accompany young children? That would throw up immediate flags in my book.
I don't know if I agree with this. More to the point, I don't know if studies that point to men being more likely to abuse sexually are accurate. Seems to me that when a male commits these type of acts, they are reported and viewed as such. If a female does them, they are much less likely to be reported and are viewed in a very different light, many times.
More violent, that's reasonable to me.
That's a fair question and hard to determine. There are plenty of sadistic females so it is not too big of a stretch to assume they are just as capable of sexual violence. I am in no way insinuating men are incapable, and females naturally are. It was more just taking into account all of the risk factors associated with each gender.
I've seen the numbers are approaching mid 40% for women now. Odds are still higher for men though.
The rising numbers also apply for straight up domestic violence (non-sexual). It's almost 50-50 now, but, on average, the males tend to cause more damage.