Anonymous #4 11w

yes

18

Anonymous mother_russia 11w

it is heartbreaking.

12

Anonymous mother_russia 11w

As far as we know, statistically, men are actually more likely to abuse children so the sign is technically true if theirs any men on that side

49

Anonymous bluecat 11w

That is definitely true so fair point

12

Anonymous mother_russia 11w

Studies do point to religious folks, men mostly, being more likely to be predators and we know they’re quick to defend or hide it. Religious men are the most dangerous— look at how they hide their crimes and run the country.

19

Anonymous #2 11w

What studies are you referring to?

4

Anonymous #9 11w

2015, Gene Abel and Nora Harlow— 93% of respondents declared being religious. Most people in the US are religious. ACMS (Australia) found that 1 in 250 suffered CSA under a religious leader. The church is the perfect place for groomers to set up their ploys and have unfettered access to kids and vulnerable adults 🤢

13

Anonymous #2 11w

What studies? All the ones I had seen were saying it wasn’t more likely for priests or religious people to be perpetrators. When I look it up is says they aren’t more likely too so I would love to read your sources

0

Anonymous #2 11w

Oh I don’t know the rates for Australia, I have been looking it up for the USA

3

Anonymous mother_russia 11w

Well you have to keep in mind priest are in a leadership position and Christians do hold a lot of leadership positions in their local communities and in larger communities. So your original study Also in a round about way supports that priest and Christians do have increased likelihood for harm

4

Anonymous #2 11w

Well 1:5 Australians go to church and about 1:4 Australians are sexually abused before age 16 so 1 in 250 being sexually abused as a child by a religious leader makes sense per capita. In America it’s 1:9 girls are sexually abused as children and 1:20 boys according to rainn.org

5

Anonymous mother_russia 11w

How are they defining children in your study under 18 or under 16 or like under 12 (it’s terrible nonetheless I’m just a soc major and I like to know the parameters of stats)

2

Anonymous #2 11w

So that statistic isn’t saying that they are more likely to be sexually abusive towards children, it’s obviously a high amount but not any higher than other groups. I do want to specify I was sexually abused as a child by my pastor/teacher (he was both) so I’m not trying to defend it or excuse horrible behavior, I looked into this before because I was going to show stats to my family about it and found that I was wrong and Christians/priests weren’t more likely.

4

Anonymous bluecat 11w

I’m sorry that didn’t make much sense to me, can you rephrase that?

1

Anonymous mother_russia 11w

Ok so these studies and statistics they depend on data so does when your studies say children what exactly are they referring too are they saying people under 18 or are they saying people under 12 or 16 like the Australian study

1

Anonymous bluecat 11w

Depending on what the study is calling a child it would affect the findings this study might have a separate category for teens and young children. Or they might just be saying anyone under age. And like i said previously priest are community leaders and Christians do tend to be in leadership positions so your data saying leaders are more likely or adults in trusted positions that does still cover christians and priest

3

Anonymous bluecat 11w

Like I’m a sociology major so we look at stats and studies a lot and we are taught how to compare them and the importance of understanding the actual information vs how it’s presented to you. I’ve read studies that say children are more likely to think xyz then adults and the children in question were only people younger than 9 and I’ve had similar things where it’s talking about teens and it is like people 14-21

5

Anonymous bluecat 11w

lol cool

1