this isnt going to make me very popular, but i think the figures for sexually abused children are really screwed up. I dont think it is possible to take an accurate census on how many children are abused, because there is both a bias on our side for, (not intentionally) presenting data in a way that will garner support and recognition, an extreme familiel, and societal pressure to keep abused children from reporting, as it is occuring and as adults as well. This is complicated by the fact of merely taking a survey about sexual abuse is likely to only draw those who have been abused, as other people would feel very uncomfortable, regardless of objective observation, discussing such a societal taboo. The pervading attitude in society is the ostridge aproach, if i dont see it, it isnt there. There is also a bias towards major metropolitan areas, as most rural and small towns have not had significant progress in even acknowledging such a thing exists.

Even so, id estimate abused males somewhere between 1 in 10 to 1 in 20. You dont have to be abused to live in a dysfunctional family, i suspect physical abuse would run much higher, and id say the majority of american families are severely dysfunctional.

But think about it for a minute. Even if its 1 in a 100, or 1 in a thousand, thats UNACCEPTABLE!!! That means that over a million men have been raped as children! That is a huge figure, it boggles the mind at its enormity. I might be able to sleep at night if that figure was 1 in every hundred thousand, or 1 in every million, but its not, and there is no way to deny that. I dont to justify scientifically why incest is contrary to the natural order, i dont know why i know rape is wrong, i just do. i know it the way i know that hiroshima was wrong, the way i know the holocaust was wrong. One is too many, and damn it its the fucking TRUTH!

I agree that one is too many. The figures I have seen say 3 in 10 boys are abused physically and or sexually. Are you saying that the numbers are too high? That fewer are really abused? If that is what you were saying then I would have to disagree. I am affraid that the number is much higher. I am one of those who never told, so I am one that is not counted in the stats. There are certainly many others.

yes, i am saying the numbers are probably lower. Think about it. 3 in 10 means a little over every fouth person you meet has been sexually abused. It may seem like that to us, because our domographic tends to congregate with each other, intentionally or not, we are kind of drawn to each other. but 1 in 10 or 1 in 20 is still an epidemic, thats my point. Figures like the ones we have been presenting are probably not accurate, because of the factors involved in taking the census. Those who are willing to take the servey are the most likely to have been abused, or know somebody who has. thats the main reason why i think that it is lower. Of course, there could be reasons around that, like just telling people its a survey then showing them the type later, but still, surveys are taken by people who have nothing better to do with thier time. I mean, honestly, how many upper-middle class people would bother to take a survey? These are taken at the locals, like colledges, that are most likely to harbor victoms of sexual abuse, and those most likely to lye about it either way. Teenagers and young adults do wierd ass things like that all the time. There is a show in california on the radio that is called love line, and id say half the people who call are dealing with some sort of sexual abuse. yet they get non-stop crank calls from kids who lye about being abused just to get on the air.

I dont know, i could be wrong, but i just dont think every 4th person you meet could claim to have been sexually abused. the closest id say is 1 in 6 and that is stretching it, but honestly, who cares about semantics? The only reason i mentino this is people tend to club people over the head with statistics, and i think this alienates people, they have a hard time believing its so many. If every tenth or twentieth person you meet is sexually abused, isnt that enough? The average person right now isnt thinking straight, they have an image of sexual abuse as being so rare it almost never happens, like an airplane crash. When they hear statistics like 1 in 4, they think that is outrageous, they dont buy it. They think its another media scare tactic. But in fact it is much closer to the truth than the 1 in 1000 or 1 in 10000 figures they have been brainwashed into believing.

There are two bibliographies on the Home Page that list many articles about male sexual abuse. Some of them (for example, Mendel, Gartner) detail the issues and problems related to researching the topic. The 1 in 6 figures come from the 1995 article by Lisak, Hopper, and Song. That was based on a random sample of 600 college age men (mean age 28), but Lisak now has data on about 3000 men. He found that 17% said they had had unwanted direct sexual contact with an adult or clearly older child by age 16. ("Direct" means that touch of some kind was involved.) When indirect sexual contact was included (like asking a child to pose for pornography) the figure rose to 28% (1 in 4). The figures for women come from studies by Diana Russell in the 1980s.