lf2

New domestic violence study: 1 in 4 women attacked by intimate partners

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released new results yesterday from telephone surveys of about 9,000 women and 7,400 men. One in four women reported being violently attacked by their husbands or boyfriends. One in five women said they were victims of rape or attempted rape.

Read Survey: 1 in 4 women attacked by intimate partner on NPR.org.

Read Survey: 1 in 3 women affected by partner’s violent behavior on CNN.com, which also includes data about violence to men.

National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey, on the CDC.gov.

 


Comment on this article

40 Comments on "New domestic violence study: 1 in 4 women attacked by intimate partners"

Notify of

This survey doesn’t surprise me in the least, I liked the comment from one man though, a bit “tongue in cheek” I think. True, none the less.

“One of the questions from the survey:

How many people have you had vaginal, oral, or anal sex with after they pressured you by”

doing things like telling you lies, making promises about the future they knew were untrue, threatening to end your relationship, or threatening to spread rumors about you?
• wearing you down by repeatedly asking for sex, or showing they were unhappy?”

This guy obviously knows a psychopath. NO Joke!

the jury trial for my ex to appear for domestic violence on me is january 13th. i’m going to try to have the prosecuter let me testify over the telephone. i just can’t even think about having him looking at me while i’m testifying. it terrifys me to no end. i will be glad when this is over. i haven’t been able to sleep at night at all since i found out he was arrested. i’m needing all your’s moral support through this or i will chicken out. i hope i don’t do that.

Marcy,

I’m not sure if they can allow you to testify at a jury trial over the phone….me thinks not.

As far as you “chickening out”—YOU CAN CHOOSE if you testify or not. IT IS UNDER YOUR CONTROL.

Him looking at you or not is beside the point. If you WANT and NEED to testify to get him put in jail, you WILL DO WHAT YOU HAVE TO DO TO ACCOMPLISH THAT.

It sounds like to me that you are talking yourself into “chickening out”—

Instead of doing that, how about you AFFIRM that you WILL testify, and focus on DOING IT….not allowing him to intimidate you, because if you allow HIM TO CONTROL whether or not you testify or not, HE STILL HAS CONTROL OVER YOU.

The only way you can “win” in this is to TAKE BACK YOUR OWN POWER AND CONTROL OVER YOURSELF. He can only have it if you GIVE IT TO HIM.

Your choice. ((hugs)))

Marcy,
just imagine him in a poopy diaper.
🙂

In my humble opinion this article’s headline should really read:

“MEDIA TELLING LIES ABOUT DOMESTIC VIOLENCE… AGAIN!”

Honestly, what a heap of manure that NPR news article is! I think this CDC survey itself has some flaws, but I’m really disgusted with the lying news media who make the problem far worse by deliberately misrepresenting the facts!

Anyone seeing a load of sensationalism like this in a news article ought to ask themselves right away: “What are they lying to us about now?” When it comes to domestic violence, that’s not really a rhetorical question. It has two answers, and they’re invariably the same.

The first lie is that they’re usually doing their best to EXAGGERATE the prevalence of domestic violence—sometimes wildly so.

The second lie is that they’re usually PRETENDING that “women” are the victims of all this supposed “violence”—and lying by deliberate omission about the assaults inflicted on MEN by violent and sometimes homicidal females!

Taking that second lie first, what does this NPR headline say? “Survey: 1 In 4 Women Attacked By Intimate Partner.” Excuse me, WHY does this headline about a CDC survey of violence toward BOTH SEXES choose to talk only about “women”? Personally I’m sick and tired of hearing brainless morons yammering on about nothing but “women-women-women” every single time they discuss “domestic violence.” What about the countless MEN who are abused by female partners? Contrary to the lies spread by some, their numbers are not small! This CDC survey itself shows that.

Not only did the NPR headline neglect to mention them, but there was no clear mention of abused men in the article whatsoever! Instead, the wretched hack named Kate something who wrote this garbage for NPR chose to act as a shill for the notorious man-hating feminazis and other biased “activists” who are constantly exaggerating the supposed “oppressions” inflicted on women and blaming it all on men, while whitewashing abusive females by pretending they don’t exist. Where is this woman’s integrity as a journalist? Domestic violence is NOT a “gender” issue the way feminazis have always tried to make it. It is a HUMAN issue.

Perhaps I shouldn’t expect any better from NPR, when much of “public broadcasting” suffers from a leftist bias even worse than that in the media as a whole. But I was already disgusted by the first report I’d seen of this CDC survey, this time from the Associated Press. The AP’s syndicated report, needless to say, found its way into far too many newspapers, all the way from the Arizona Republic to the UK Daily Mail. AP’s article, written by a man named Stobbs—obviously a pathetic brainwashed toady to feminazism—took exactly the same sensationalist tack, playing up how many women are supposedly being “attacked”—again without one single reference to the MALE victims of domestic violence.

Luckily I can award a far better grade to CNN for their own report of this CDC survey, a report that gender-wise at least was much more evenhanded. That can be seen here:

Link to CNN article

True, CNN’s headline did display some gender bias, by announcing “Survey: 1 in 3 women affected by partner’s violent behavior”. Again, there was nothing in the headline about how men are affected. And the photo underneath was a close-up of a woman’s eye. That again is a little too much feminization of the issue. But before going further, notice the discrepancy in those figures:

Is it one in three, as CNN’s headline says? Or is it one in four, as the NPR and AP headlines claim?

The fact that a discrepancy exists at all should start people questioning right away! If the figures can be “stretched” that far by one means or another for the sake of putting a spin on them, how far is reality being stretched altogether by these “reports” and “surveys” in pursuit of somebody’s political agenda?

Proceeding to CNN’s article itself, their first paragraph does begin: “More than one in three women have experienced sexual assault, physical violence or stalking by an intimate partner during their lifetime.” However, their second paragraph immediately continues: “The same is true for more than one in four men.”

That “one in four” is a large figure. It’s not a lot less than the proportion of women claiming to be victims of these same acts!

Which of the survey’s findings are these figures based on? That’s hard to say at a glance, when the survey itself quotes a number of different figures. But a good idea can be obtained from Tables 4.1 and 4.2, which show that 28.2 percent of men and 32.9 percent of women reported physical violence from a partner at some time during their lives. Those figures are not very different from one another.

CNN also quoted a woman named Laura Palumbo, who “applauded the report’s focus on male victims of sexual assault. ‘For a number of reasons in our society, it’s really difficult to believe that this happens to men,'” among other comments.

Good for her! We need more honest Laura Palumbos in the field of domestic violence. But there was no mention of this in the NPR and AP reports, and it is inexcusable that they should continue pretending “domestic violence” is just something men do to women. Sexism should be removed from the topic altogether. I would much prefer to see headlines reading (for instance):

“ONE IN FOUR PEOPLE HAVE BEEN ATTACKED BY AN INTIMATE PARTNER”

And if there has to be a photo accompanying the headline, as I saw in one paper, I’d rather see one where both partners are setting about one another! Because that’s another truth about “domestic violence”: that half the time both partners are into it together! Still, I have to give CNN a “B plus” for more objective reporting of this story than many others.

However, that still leaves the first issue I mentioned at the beginning: that of exaggerating the prevalence of domestic violence altogether. That can be done in all kinds of ways. Looking at the survey itself, I can see obvious ways that the prevalence of rape has been inflated, for instance. “One in five” is too high a figure. But without going into a detailed critique of all that, the most glaring thing that strikes me is how the results have been presented: the way everything has been added up together into one huge, all-encompassing bundle.

This is really about the way a lot of people think—or more to the point, DON’T think! In particular, when people see headlines about “one in four women” being impacted by some circumstance or other, they’re liable to react as if it’s all happening in the present—when it’s not!

Take this headline: “1 in 4 women attacked by partner.” It creates an impression in the reader’s mind that these attacks probably happened recently, and worse, could be happening all the time to 25 percent of women. That’s simply not true.

Another headline reads “A quarter of U.S. women suffer violent attacks by their partners.” Notice the present tense of the verb “suffer,” giving the false impression that this is happening to a quarter of U.S. women right now, as we speak. That’s not true either.

The CNN headline reads “1 in 3 women affected by partner’s violent behavior—as if a third of all women suffered continually from these effects. Yet this is a long way from reality!

To their credit again, CNN did begin immediately by explaining that this is something alleged to have happened to these women at some time during their lifetime. That makes all the difference!

What none of these news media reports even tried to mention is the figures this survey quoted, for instance, in Tables 4.1 and 4.2 for the prevalence of physical violence from a partner over the preceding twelve months. Compared with “lifetime” figures, this gives us a better idea of how many people are affected by ongoing domestic violence at any given time. Their findings?

For women, 4.0 percent reported physical violence from a partner in the past year, and

for men, 4.7 percent reported physical violence from a partner in the past year.

Surprisingly, the figure for men is slightly higher! But the gender difference is not my point here, and in any case other surveys have found somewhat different results. That can also depend on what kind of “violence” is counted, whether “pushes and shoves” are included for instance.

My point, rather, is that with all the “boyfriends,” “girlfriends,” “dates” and other “romantic partners” (however transient) a person is likely to have throughout their long lives—including the rambunctious teen years when adolescent behavior is not at its best!—it would almost be surprising if the average person had never encountered a partner who was bullying or otherwise obnoxious, or “assaulted” them in some way. Even if it was only a violent shove! Yet on a survey like this, one small incident of that kind is enough to mark a respondent down as having experienced “violence from an intimate partner” at some time during their lives—even though it may have had next to no effect on them in the long run.

This is not remotely to be compared with people who ended up living with one or more constantly abusive partners, often for years. That can be far more damaging—but their numbers are obviously smaller.

Yet most of the media don’t like it when all they have to report is the facts! As far as this survey is to be believed, the facts seem to be these:

“ONE IN 21 MEN AND ONE IN 25 WOMEN WERE ATTACKED BY A PARTNER DURING THE LAST YEAR”

NONE of the news articles I’ve seen told us those far more modest figures! I suppose the journalists in question didn’t think that was much of a “story.”

I think the exaggeration of domestic violence statistics must have a depressing effect on some of those stuck in abusive relationships, especially those who grew up in abusive families and subsequently blundered from one abusive partner to another. Hearing people say that “domestic violence is everywhere,” they’re all too likely to conclude that “everybody does it” and “this is as good as it gets, so I may as well make the best of it.” It would be far better to impress upon them that chronic abuse happens in a smallish minority of families and is not normal behavior. That at least might help them to see they don’t have to put up with it, and in circumstances like that the grass really is greener on the “other side”!

Statistics are considered cold, bare facts but they can be presented in different ways in order to elicit different emotions from the reader.

Here’s the shocker. The Fed’s bail-out was not $1.2 trillion, $7.77 trillion, $16 trillion, or even $24 trillion. It was $29 trillion. That is, of course, the cumulative total

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/l-randall-wray/bernankes-obfuscation-con_b_1147291.html

Frankly I’m not shocked at any of these statistics. Whether it is presented as 2 in 50 persons per year or 50% of people over their lifetimes. (or 29 trillion cumultive bank loans since 2008)

If we consider that sex offenders usually have 100’s of victims before they are apprehended, these statistics aren’t surprising. And sometimes the victims of child abuse go on to become child abusers, so that violence begets violence and the cycle perpetuates.

Experts on the history of child abuse say it’s actually getting better in modern times. In the past, children were mere chattel, just as women were. It takes time to irradicate these old patterns of abuse from a family lineage. I’m just glad people are becoming aware of what abuse is. It took me 43 years to figure it out.

Thank you Donna for posting this.

Redwald,

You are not the only one who does not buy every story that the “media” puts out….and I agree, you make some VALID points.

“Statistics” can be skewed to “prove” anything! The old joke about “statistically a man with one foot on a red hot stove and the other foot on a block of ice is on average comfortable!” is so true.

Look at BloggerT’s web site about FEMALE (sexual) OFFENDERS. Everyone it seems ASSUMES that only men are the sexual offenders of our children, the Sanduskys of the world, but in actual fact, when you EXAMINE the FACTS sexual abusers in our society are about 50% men and 50% women. Yet almost NO one thinks about women being rapists or pedophiles. Blogger’s website though if you read it will DISABUSE YOU OF THE IDEA THAT 99% OF PEDOPHILES ARE MEN….fortunately some news articles are coming out now about women teachers etc having sex with students, but our society’s idea that if a man has sex with a 15 year old child it is ABUSE, but if an adult woman has sex with a 12-15 year old BOY, “he just got lucky.”

Sky is right, I think in that our children are not legally considered chattel any more, but that is only SLOWLY changing as “parents rights” seem to overcome the CHILD’s rights in many or most family courts. The parent’s rights to the child rather than the child’s rights to a nurturing parent.

Sex offenders DO have hundreds of victims, and a good study done using polygraphs on FIRST offenders convicted showed that the average of previous victims to the FIRST CONVICTION was between 110 and 300 previous VICTIMS. Kry-ma-neeeee!!!! I wish the judges that sentence these people would realize that these people have done a horrendous amount of damage to children BEFORE being caught and sentence accordingly. Plus, they will NOT reform or change.

Fortunately, though, not all child victims become abusers themselves…in fact the majority of child victims do NOT become abusers from what studies I have read.

I hope our friend BloggerT will chime in on this thread.

Oxdrover,

You are right when you say i will do what i have to do to get him punished for this. yes, i want to chicken out thinking of having to face him again. but i’m not going to no matter how scarey it is when that day gets here. he has gotten away with just short of murder being i think if my son wouldn’t of called last time i was with him i don’t think i would be here right now. i keep thinking that thought and i think that’s what will give me the courage to walk in that room.

Thanks, Donna, for adding that link to the CNN article.

Thanks also for pointing out that AP is the real culprit in this instance. When I was glancing over the texts last night I was focusing on the material at the end, which differs from one article to another. But you’re right: the NPR article did come from AP in its entirety, and the earlier paragraphs are identical.

As far as I can make out, it was Mike Stobbs of AP who wrote the earlier part of the article, which appeared in some newspapers. Then Kate Brumbeck, also from AP, added more material at the end which appeared in the NPR version and some other newspapers but not in every newspaper.

Unfortunately Brumbeck’s addition did nothing to remedy the bias and omissions of Stobbs’s original article. In fact she made the bias worse by running to a load of “advocates” for their comments, when a good journalist should have been soliciting opinions from critics as well. The whole article is slanted towards trying to make the reader believe these inflated figures instead of challenging what—if anything—they “really” mean.

one/joy_step_at_a_time

my comments are not related to the mentioned articles, but to my own thinking spurred by a couple of reported ex or partner related murders reported in the last few days, the truth that a lot of violence takes place over the holidays, and my rumination over my father’s neglect of my mother.

This have left me thinking about the ‘risk’ of being married/ living with someone (this is one or the reports that has me thinking):
http://www.thespec.com/news/canada/article/640884–jealous-ex-followed-car-shot-three-dead-friends-say

In DV situations the most dangerous time is when the abused partner tries to leave (often you see the word ‘estranged’ in the reports of these murders.)

i don’t mean to offend anyone, and women kill other women in lesbian and men in heterosexual relationships – but the majority of men and women who die due to partner violence, die at the hands of men. it hurts my heart that men have this legacy, and that it is so dangerous to date, to love, to wed.

we are taught to believe that intimate relationships and marriage are ‘supposed’ to be about love, friendship, family – no one ever suggested to me that they would be the most dangerous things I would ever do.

one/joy_step_at_a_time

marcyII – sending your strength and peace.

One Joy,
In the book “Why does he do that? Inside the minds of angry men.” Lundy Bancroft uses a good analogy to describe why angry men feel entitled to abuse women. He compares them to a young boy who has been told all his life that a piece of land belongs to him, and when he reaches 18, he can take possession. The land doesn’t actually belong to him, it’s really a park. When he sees people in the park, he acts like a lunatic and chases them out. He tries to share the park by putting up special areas for picnicking, but nobody follows his rules. He is left angry and frustrated because nobody is respecting his property rights. At age 18 he tries to take possession of the park and is arrested. He’s finally informed that it was never his park, he had been misled, yet it takes years for him to stop feeling possessive of the park because it’s what he has always believed.

We come from a culture in which women were considered possessions. Although this is no longer law, the attitude that one person has to be the dominating force in a relationship, still clings.

one/joy_step_at_a_time

hi sky – it’s a interesting analogy (and a good one in as much as it has internal integrity). many people have interaction with the police for DV before they murder. they have been warned that the damn park isn’t theirs. it changes nothing.

some people have a greater tendency toward ‘entitlement’ (as WE all know), and I would posit that many of the DV abusers are spaths, narcissists or have high narcissistic tendencies.

Sky, that’s a very interesting analogy and it makes sense. And I would add that in order for a man to feel entitled to a woman, he would first have to dehumanize her and regard her as an object.

One and Star,
To be fair, people of both genders have been known to dehumanize and to feel entitled to treat others as possessions. The only difference is that men have a support system in place that encourages them. I’ve seen and heard it. The idea that a woman should be fooled, played and conquered is not just from spaths, it’s part of our culture. It takes a special man to “think outside the box” and reject his programming.

Sky, I absolutely had the non-gender bias thing in my mind when I posted. You are absolutely right. But I thought it might convolute the message if I put all the disclaimers in my post. I think about someone like Alex reading, who might interpret it as we are out to get men. Nothing could be further from the truth. Thanks for your clarification and consideration of others’ feelings.

Star,
I know you did. It would be hard to find someone on this site, more non-gender biased than you are.

The only reason I mentioned it is because, as you said, people who don’t know us could erroneously conclude that we are men-bashers. On the contrary, it is our culture at fault for not providing men with a support system that makes them feel safe without needing scapegoats.

It needed mentioning so that the solution could be found, rather than just laying blame.

Sky, I often forget that people reading could get the wrong idea. Thanks so much for making your point. I appreciate your posts so much, though I will stop short of love bombing. LOL

ohhhhh! bomb away! you’re so good at it!!!
😀

Yes, but you wouldn’t like the devalue at the end! lol

bumpity bump bumpity bump…

*sound of Skylar tumbling down the pyramid steps after Star rips her heart out*

Yes, but that short ride to the top of the pyramid would be so sweet…….LOL

It’s EXHILARATING! and the view from the top is simply DIVINE!

Have you two bin out on your Xmas do? lmao x

ha ha ha

I just got a bit of good news. I never know what to do with my snakes skins when they shed. They shed every 6 weeks. I have a rather large shed sitting on my countertop right now.

It just so happens that salons are now doing nails with snake sheds – it’s all the rage! I called a local salon and asked if they do the snakeskin nails. They said yes but they are currently out of snake shed skins right now……..

How convenient for me! I knew those lazy good-for-nothing snakes would help me pay the rent somehow…….LOL (This is really true. I’m planning to sell their shed skins to salons.)

Oxy, you’re dead right about “statistics”! As Mark Twain famously said, “There are lies, damned lies… and statistics!”

Unfortunately, pedophilia is another topic where I would advise caution and skepticism about what some people claim. I must admit I haven’t dug into the topic in much detail (as I have with other areas like domestic violence), but some numbers I see being quoted do cause me to question whether they’re even possible.

The trouble is that there seem to be some topics that set certain people off into paroxysms of screaming hysteria and shrieking emotionalism, so much so that they take leave of ordinary common sense. Unfortunately, pedophilia can be one of them. We only have to look at the unbelievable outbreak of hysteria that happened in the 1980s over the imagined “mass molestation” of children in day care to see how a whole multitude of people—including some of those we depend on in the “justice” system!—can take leave of their senses altogether, believe things that are virtually impossible—and perpetrate the most shocking injustices as a result. Those dreadful “day care” witch hunts alone inflicted outrageous injustices on innocent people that have never been remedied to this day: innocent people who were sent to prison, had their lives wrecked, and never had one penny of compensation from those responsible for doing this to them.

In my experience this kind of irrational mentality often goes hand in hand with a total disregard of the meaning of numbers. Numbers of course are a precision tool intended to measure something in reality! But some people don’t seem to use numbers that way at all. If they’re horrified, say, or enraged about something, they seem to use numbers as a kind of emotional scream! I suppose we all do this in limited contexts by way of metaphor (“If I’ve heard that once I’ve heard it a million times” is not literally true), but some people do it in non-metaphorical contexts where they shouldn’t. They’ll start off by shouting (for instance) that there are such-and-such a number of victims of whatever “evil” it is they’re campaigning against. Then if they’re not getting the result they want, and if the “evil” is still there—which it invariably is of course, because many evils can never be eradicated altogether—their reaction is to “scream louder”—by cranking the numbers up!

That doesn’t mean a darn thing about reality, and their numbers are totally untrue. So on some occasions it pays to remember that what a “large number” is really measuring is how shrill and hysterical some “activist” is getting! The appropriate response might be to tell the “activist” to “chill out, the sky is not falling!” Unfortunately what often happens instead is that some people accept the numbers without questioning them and spread them around further. Then others believe they’re “facts” when they’re not.

The reason I brought this up in the context of pedophilia concerns that infamous predator, Charles “Jackie” Walls III. One item I came across some time ago was this story, The Scoutmaster’s Secret, by Valerie Ferrari. (Other people here might like to read that story too.) The writer mentions that Walls had “some 30 years of molesting over 50 children.” Now fifty children is a shockingly high number of lives to be damaged in this way, quite apart from the Heath Stocks affair. Also, since this happened in a small town with a population of only four and a half thousand, Walls inflicted this damage on a substantial proportion of the population. If there were 900 families, say—and I’m sure this is the kind of town where “everyone knows everyone else”—it must have seemed to anyone as if Walls had been molesting many of the kids they knew. Nevertheless, fifty children over thirty years is a perfectly credible number the way Walls was operating.

Now I’m positive I’ve also seen, in some other news article, a statement to the effect that over his career, Walls “approached” (or words to that effect) a hundred and fifty more children—or perhaps a hundred and fifty altogether. (This is annoying me because I can’t find the original source right now, but I’m sure it had “a hundred and fifty” in it.) Presumably what that meant was that Walls “made advances” of some kind to these hundred and fifty boys, but they managed to avoid being actually victimized by him. That also seems perfectly credible. Obviously Walls must have made a number of tentative but unsuccessful “approaches” in order to end up with the fifty victims quoted by Valerie Ferrari. Though the man seems to have had a diabolical “nose” not only for which boys would succumb to his advances, but which boys would keep their mouths shut and go along with the whole unsavory business, even to the extent of defending him in court!

The trouble is that I’ve also seen an allegation that Walls had fifteen hundred victims! A number as high as that would be enough to make me raise my eyebrows just on general principles. In light of the other more credible numbers I mentioned above that conflict with it, I’m all the more inclined to be skeptical about these fifteen hundred. Just by way of a reality check, there weren’t that many boys in the whole town of Lonoke, even taking into account the thirty-year period when Walls was operating. Even if I cast the net wider, there are barely enough boys of the right age range in the whole of Lonoke County! So where would Walls have gotten all these victims from? Then another way to look at it is that if he took thirty years to perpetrate all this abuse, he would have had to molest a new boy every single week to achieve this staggering total. That seems very unlikely to me.

That’s why I’d urge anyone to question numbers like this that seem to be “out of the box.” But I also wonder what else, if anything, that “fifteen hundred” number might possibly represent. Even if it’s incorrect, it might correspond to something in the real world. For instance:

I can see how it must seem to the residents of Lonoke as if this man Walls had been molesting just about every boy they knew! So I can see how, subjectively at least, they’d be inclined to accept a very high victim count for the world at large, even if it was unrealistic.

Then somebody might have taken the number of boys Walls victimized in the town of Lonoke itself and extrapolated it to a larger area (such as the county) to get this huge number, even if that wasn’t a valid thing to do.

Or somebody might have counted the number of boys Walls had simply been in contact with over the years, by way of regional Scouting activities—the pool of potential victims, in other words—and presented that erroneously as the number of actual victims. Sometimes an error of that kind can result from hysterical overreaction. That’s to say, someone out there went shrieking up the wall in horror at the thought of any child even being near this man—as if one glance from this monster could itself “contaminate” the poor child in some way, or as if he must automatically have molested every child he ever laid eyes on. Luckily that’s nowhere near true.

However, that “hundred and fifty” I mentioned earlier could also be highly significant. Did somebody take that number, the boys that Walls allegedly “made advances” to, and carelessly stick another zero on the end, making “fifteen hundred” out of it?

I wonder. Anyway I do urge caution in examining the numbers that get tossed around in fields like this. Even if Walls did “only” molest fifty boys, that’s still fifty too many!

Skylar- “The idea that a woman should be fooled, played and conquered is not just from spaths, it’s part of our culture.”

This is the exact reason why it was so difficult for me to determine if my ex was indeed a spath. To many mutual friends, he was just a “typical” guy doing what most guys in their early twenties do. It was crazy making from many sides.

Believe it or not, I still struggle with what to think even though I have been reassured time and time again that my ex is a spath. It has taken me 16 years to really believe “My Truth”…and I still have moments of doubt.

Redwald,
my exspath is also a pedophile and over our 25 years together, there is no way I can believe that he had only 2 victims per year.

This may sound surprising since I didn’t even know that he WAS a pedophile until after I found out he was a spath.

When I did find out he was a spath, memories flooded my brain of young girls he had contact with which he passed off as innocent and I believed. Here’s the sad part: one that I know of was a prostitute. And I know that most of his victims are prostitutes and drug addicts. So you see, the pedophiles appetite for sex isn’t like a normal person’s. They will troll for innocent victims 24/7 because they need it. Sandusky even bought a house adjacent to a school yard and lived there 30 years.

As you suggested, most of their attempts with innocent victims will fail. But in those instances, they will go to young prostitutes – WHO ARE STILL CHILDREN. These crimes never go reported because both parties have broken the law and the child is in a situation where she/he must continue to ply their trade to survive. Sex with a minor prostitute is still pedophelia and it’s easy to acquire. The pedophile prefers a more innocent victim so he never stops looking for fresh meat, but I would venture to guess that for every victim from a good family, you will find 20 more street kid – victims who will have sex for money because of circumstances.

In retrospect, I can see so much of my spaths behavior was just a way of setting himself up to have contact with street kids so he could use them for sex. BTW, he was a street kid from age 12 and lived with a prostitute, so you can imagine what he did for money…

Sisterhood,
This is where Star and I have always had our differences.
Generally I say, call them spaths. And Star says, no they are just toxic. I hope one day Star and I can meet somewhere in the middle.
🙂

My spath surrounded himself with men who liked to use women for sex and money. This was so that he could “blend” in and also so that they wouldn’t know that he was actually a bi-sexual and a pedophile. Another thing that he enjoyed was using these stupid men to do harm to other women. He enjoyed their pain and the fact that he could entice others to cause it. Finally, he used a bunch of these misogynist cops to chase me around and harrass me at his command.

Of the two of these men that I spoke with, neither ever imagined that he murdered MEN!!! That’s outrageous. But I’m not sure what either of them think of killing women. Probably not as bad. Still, these men don’t wear masks like he does. They don’t hide their misogynist views. So it’s hard to call them psychopaths because in my mind, a psychopath is the last person you’d ever suspect of evil. Psychopaths seem so nice….until they kill you.

Sky, that’s a terrible thing to discover you’ve been living with.

Regarding the number of victims, I’m sure if somebody lived in a large city, or moved around a lot, and was constantly trawling for new victims, they could indeed rack up a very high count over the years. The deal with this Walls guy as far as I’m aware is, first, that he lived in an area with sparser population (so a smaller pool of potential victims to begin with), but also that he had a “dedicated circle” of more or less “captive” victims that he was abusing all the time. How much trawling he had time to do beyond that, I simply don’t know.

Anyway I can see how people just don’t think about somebody close to them being a pedophile, because it’s not the way their own minds are running. Taking all this stuff about sports coaches for instance, I can imagine a guy can be enjoying good, healthy fun doing “guy things” with a number of boys, whether it’s football, basketball or whatever. Then if another guy seems to be doing exactly the same, it’s natural to assume he’s doing it for the same healthy reasons. We all “project” to that extent, and it can be a shock to realize that’s not all that another person is thinking about, and they’ve got far sicker things on their own mind.

Redwald,
in retrospect, it should have been obvious. He was always helping street kids and homeless or poor people…

I came home from work and lit up my little hibachi in the parking lot next to our apartment building. I had some steaks and was going to grill them out there. Where I lived, there were lots of homeless and street people. So when spath invited Tyrone and Tina to share our meal, I thought it was nice. He told me they were homeless and living in the park across from our building. Tyrone was black and about 20 years old, Tina was white and 15 years old. I shared the meal with them. I was happy to. Later that night, spath told me that Tina was a prostitute and Tyrone was her pimp and that this is how they survived. Our apartment was in the basement. Spath suggested that we allow them to sleep in the basement of the building, out in the laundry room, and that he was going to get Tyrone a job at the place he worked.

I thought that sounded great. Well, now I know that he just liked the idea of screwing Tina, RIGHT OUTSIDE MY DOOR, while I slept or while I was at work. Furthermore, he said he got Tyrone a job but within a week Tyrone stole some tools and got fired. That was the last I saw of Tina and Tyrone.

All this happened within a few months of meeting the spath. This is just one of many incidents like this.

But you are right, Spath lived in a large city so it was easy.
Somehow, though, they find a way. Sandusky probably had trouble finding enough victims without inconvenienceing himself so he set up a non-profit to do it for him. They NEVER stop thinking of ways to fulfill the need to do evil.

one/joy_step_at_a_time

Jonathan Black, the son of Conrad black (a notorious white collar criminal – see below) has been charged with harassing his ex gf, and was previously charged with breaking his probation. apple + tree > entitlement

http://www.thestar.com/news/crime/article/1103437–conrad-black-s-son-pleads-guilty-to-harassing-ex-girlfriend

‘The elder Black is serving a sentence after being convicted in 2007 of three counts of fraud and one count of obstruction of justice for the misappropriation of $6.1 million U.S. at the Chicago-based Hollinger International Inc.

His convictions have been reduced to one count of fraud $600,000 and one of obstruction of justice. The bulk of Black’s sentence is a result his removal of a series of boxes from his Toronto office while under investigation by U.S. financial regulators.’ http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Conrad+Black+charged+breaking+probation/5812159/story.html

I figure it like this:

Something like 1%-3% of the population are male spaths, right?

Just one male spath probably burns through something like 5-10 women in his life at the very LEAST.

So, that right there means that at least 20%-40% of the female population has been spathed.

40%? That is a disturbing number. I thought of this when I was asking myself why all the sociopath sites are so flooded by mass amounts of women who were victimized. When I did the math, it made total sense.

ok Panther what about the female spaths . If you think the average male spath can go through 5-10 women I would bet the average female spath has gone through 50 to 60 . A female spath can charm a man way easier than a male spath can charm a woman . Female spaths would normally not be violent towards their spouse because they know they would loose . Where the female spath excells is in the mind destruction department . And keep in mind that a man that has had his mind done over may just turn violent if he is pushed too far . Not all violence against women is psychopathic men beating on a inocent woman . A large number , is normal men beating on psychopathic women . Now I am not condoneing violence against psychopathic women , I am saying thats just the way it is . I am a male by the way . My Ex attacked me from behind while I was sitting down and dislocated my neck . No , I did not hit her back , but I could see how a lot of guys would have . If I had hit her and it had gone to court who would be believed . Me 6 feet high weighing in at 200 lbs or her 5 foot 5 inches weighing in at 120 lbs and as cute as a button to boot .

Quest, I was following you and agreeing with you until this:

“A man that has had his mind done over may just turn violent if he is pushed too far.”

“…normal men beating on psychopathic women.” <—impossible.

I completely disagree with this. No normal man would beat a woman, period. Period. I could understand throwing someone off of you if they jumped on you or holding someone's hands so that they cannot hit you, but BEATING is on a whole different level!!! NO WAY is there a justification for this. Ever.

Maybe some people will disagree with me, but even you said that you didn't hit her back, so that just goes to show that NO it's not normal to beat someone. Ever. I am not saying that a guy who "hits back" is a sociopath, but he is not normal. And a guy who BEATS has zero sympathy from me.

Violence towards another human being is wrong. If the perpetrator is a woman its wrong. If the victim is a woman, child or man it’s wrong.
Victims and abusers is what we are discussing. ..the balance of power is always held by the person with the most physical strength surely? In my experience I’ve never been much of a match for my violent partners…..ashamed to admit there’s been two. They had something in common….they were both physically stronger than me. Women have killed violent partners however. After years of abuse they have murdered their abuser. Is it the same thing as retaliating in the heat of the moment?
If you are living with an abusive partner don’t retaliate. Leave.

Redwald,

Actually, in documented studies of “first time offenders” using a polygraph (which I know is not 100% reliable but pretty much so) to gage the truthfulness of the answers, the first time offenders were quested about the NUMBER OF PREVIOUS VICTIMS….and the AVERAGE of all the studies were between 110 and 300 victims BEFORE THEY WERE EVER CAUGHT AND CONVICTED.

I knew Jackie Walls personally, and lived in Lonoke, AR where he is from. His dad was a very honest man, an attorney and later a judge. The first time there were “rumors” about Jackie and the Boy Scouts of America kicked him out, but nothing else was done. I am under the impression that Jack Walls, Sr. helped quash the “rumors” and he would NOT have done that if he had any inkling that there was any truth to them at all.

That being said though, Jackie actually went to an official large Scout function in Colorado UNDER A FAKE NAME and even had his photo made in a group setting so it was proven he was there and under the fake name.

The prosecutor in the case said that there were OVER 1500 (fifteen hundred) children over the years, not “50” and I do not find that at all out of line with what Dr. Anna Salter, one of the TOP experts in the world on pedophilia says. Read her book “Predators” and it will CURL YOUR HAIR! Permanent wave it!

Pedophiles are I think THE MOST prolific criminals and have more guts. She mentions in her book about a school principal who would have sex with kids in his office with the door open and his secretary outside, out of visual area, but how “open” it looked and “innocent” WHO would imagine he would have sex with a kid in his office with the door open?????? WTF???

I never liked Jackie Walls, he was just very narcisistic but I admired his father and his mother, and his sisters and his wife and kids. ALL FINE PEOPLE and devastated by what he did. He also molested his sister’s kids, one of whom killed himself afterward. The DA said that she would have asked for the death penalty if she could have. I think there were plenty of people in town who would have personally been willing to hang him if they could have as well.

Jack senior shut himself away from the world and never gave any statement about Jackie. None of Jackie’s family came to the trial or supported him in any way. I understand somewhat of what he did to the family, and especially his father.

I was in town today and ran into a distant cousin and she asked me about my sons, and I told her where Patrick is and why. In the past I always lied and said “Oh, he lives in Texas” and when they asked what he did for a living I said “works for the State of Texas” both true statements, but definitely NOT THE TRUTH, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. I am no longer going to hide or be ashamed. The shame is not mine, and not the Walls family’s, it belongs to the psychopaths for what they have done.

Pedophiles are my number one hate! I have confronted them in our living history group when they got out of prison and tried to come back to our group and work with children. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A REHABILITATED PEDOPHILE in my opinion, and no such thing as a rehabilitated sexual predator of any kind.

Hi Panther,
I am not trying to justify the violence , I am mearly saying what can happen . I know a guy whose wife was waiting for him at the top of the stairs when he came home from work . She had a frying pan and hit him in the face with it as he came through the door . One punch and he knocked her out . Who is to blame ??.
Most normal men who get into relationships with psychopathic women have no idea what they are getting into , I certainly didn’t . As time passes the relationship starts off seemingly fine and then slowly goes down hill . I used to say to friends that the woman I was with , had mind games I didn’t know had been invented . I also called her , the riddle talker . She was a merchant of confusion and she was good at it . I sometimes wondered if she was trying to provoke a violence episode so she could get me charged . My feeling is that the world of psychopathic women is less understood and less studied than the male side . It is the male ones that seem to be the most violent , however it is the women that are more cunning and covert in their abuse . I have often wondered how many psychopathic women have killed their husbands with poison and gotten away with it .

Hi Quest,
Yeah, I understand what you mean. Every story is different, and it sounds like your friend’s situation was a fluke. A frying pan? That’s nuts alright. I was just hung up with the word “beat” that you used. That implies something that I think no normal person can do to someone, especially someone they care about.

Strongawoman,
A friend of mine was in a Turkish prison for 11 years. She was in prison for participating in a protest when she was 19. Anyways, I asked her once what most of the women were in there for. Answer: Murdering their abusive partners. Turkey is an EXTREMELY patriarchal culture (don’t let their fancy lights fool you…it’s the culture, not the technology). I completely understand how this can be. Women in Turkey go from being their father’s possession to being their husband’s possession. The family sends them to their future husband like handing over a cow to milk and abuse. Yeah, when someone bigger than you is using their might to overpower and abuse, it’s not incomprehensible to me that a person, while feeling trapped, might slip him something. They probably start to realize that SOMEONE is going to die, and it will be them if they leave it up to the abuser to decide.

Send this to a friend