One in four people in Ireland experience sexual abuse.

rgace

Yourself isit wrote: »

Here are the categorizations.

. During your childhood or adolescence did anyone ever show you or persuade you to look at pornographic material (for example, magazines, videos, internet, etc.) in a way that made you feel uncomfortable?
2. Did anyone ever make you or persuade you to take off your clothes, or have you pose alone or with others in a sexually suggestive way or in ways that made you feel confused or uncomfortable in order to photograph or video you?
3. As a child or adolescent, did anyone expose their sexual organs to you?
4. During this time did anyone masturbate in front of you?
5. Did anyone touch your body, including your breasts or genitals, in a sexual way? a
6. During your childhood or adolescence, did anyone try to have you arouse them, or touch their body in a sexual way?
7. Did anyone rub their genitals against your body in a sexual way?
8. Did anyone attempt to have sexual intercourse with you?
9. Did anyone succeed in having sexual intercourse with you?
10. Did anyone, male or female, make you or persuade you to have oral sex?
11. Did a man make you or persuade you to have anal sex?
12. Did anyone put their fingers or objects in your vagina or anus (back passage)? a

Now it strikes me that I am in fact a victim, as in fact on a school trip to Paris we ( group of male and female 13 year olds getting off a bus) were accosted by a guy who had on a trench coat and nothing else. I remember giggling as the teacher told him to piss off.

In the table you will see that penatrative sexual activity is about 2%.

I am surprised the figure is not higher if an adolescent having their body touched in a sexual way at a teenage disco is counted in the statistics which it reads to me like it would above.

.........

Why do we have to spell things out. The number of people reporting actual penatrative abuse is small - about 2%.

False Claim

And if you think the only serious abuse only involves penetrative abuse, you are very mistaken.

Lifetime Experience of Sexual Abuse and Assault - SAVI report
• Women: More than four in ten (42 per cent) of women reported
some form of sexual abuse or assault in their lifetime.
The most serious form of abuse, penetrative abuse, was experienced
by 10 per cent of women. Attempted penetration or
contact abuse was experienced by 21 per cent, with a further
10 per cent experiencing non-contact abuse.
• Men: Over a quarter of men (28 per cent) reported some form
of sexual abuse or assault in their lifetime. Penetrative abuse
was experienced by 3 per cent of men. Attempted penetration
or contact abuse was experienced by 18 per cent, with a further
7 per cent experiencing non-contact abuse.

SafeSurfer

One in four people in Ireland are sexually abused?
They are in their hole.

One eyed Jack

......... wrote: »

False Claim

And if you think the only serious abuse only involves penetrative abuse, you are very mistaken.

So you're at least familiar with the concept of cherry-picking then?

In Science

"Choosing to make selective choices among competing evidence, so as to emphasize those results that support a given position, while ignoring or dismissing any findings that do not support it, is a practice known as "cherry picking" and is a hallmark of poor science or pseudo-science."

— Richard Somerville, Testimony before the US House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy and Power, March 8, 2011.

"Rigorous science looks at all the evidence (rather than cherry picking only favorable evidence), controls for variables as to identify what is actually working, uses blinded observations so as to minimize the effects of bias, and uses internally consistent logic."

— Steven Novella, "A Skeptic In Oz", April 26, 2011

Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherry_picking


You may also want to familiarise yourself with Selection bias:

Selection bias is the selection of individuals, groups or data for analysis in such a way that proper randomization is not achieved, thereby ensuring that the sample obtained is not representative of the population intended to be analyzed. It is sometimes referred to as the selection effect. The phrase "selection bias" most often refers to the distortion of a statistical analysis, resulting from the method of collecting samples. If the selection bias is not taken into account, then some conclusions of the study may not be accurate.

Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selection_bias


Many posters now have gone to great lengths to demonstrate that statistics are neither true nor false, it's their methodology can be examined to point to inaccuracies in the data*. The more data you collect, from a number of sources, the more you are able to build a more accurate representation of all the data available, rather than just continuing to believe a "1 in 4" slogan that has been shown to give an incomplete picture again and again.


*more effort than I'm prepared to go to for you as I'm not being paid for this, see how that works?

B.A._Baracus

1 in 4 hey?
So with a population of roughly 5 million people, 1.25 million have been abused and since this thread has near 100 posts it also means roughly 25 of you guys have been abused.... You see where I am going with this.

Hey look people getting abused is a serious thing but they really shouldn't use 1 in 4 type stats to "shock people" - because anyone with half a brain will think "oh go away out of that"

Just to point out that both children and adults can be very seriously sexually abused without any penetrative aspect: not all abuse that isn't penetrative is minor.

2% of instances quoted may be penetrative but that doesn't mean all other assaults can be dismissed as minor.

.........

One eyed Jack wrote: »

So you're at least familiar with the concept of cherry-picking then?

In Science

"Choosing to make selective choices among competing evidence, so as to emphasize those results that support a given position, while ignoring or dismissing any findings that do not support it, is a practice known as "cherry picking" and is a hallmark of poor science or pseudo-science."

— Richard Somerville, Testimony before the US House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy and Power, March 8, 2011.

"Rigorous science looks at all the evidence (rather than cherry picking only favorable evidence), controls for variables as to identify what is actually working, uses blinded observations so as to minimize the effects of bias, and uses internally consistent logic."

— Steven Novella, "A Skeptic In Oz", April 26, 2011

Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherry_picking


You may also want to familiarise yourself with Selection bias:

Selection bias is the selection of individuals, groups or data for analysis in such a way that proper randomization is not achieved, thereby ensuring that the sample obtained is not representative of the population intended to be analyzed. It is sometimes referred to as the selection effect. The phrase "selection bias" most often refers to the distortion of a statistical analysis, resulting from the method of collecting samples. If the selection bias is not taken into account, then some conclusions of the study may not be accurate.

Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selection_bias


Many posters now have gone to great lengths to demonstrate that statistics are neither true nor false, it's their methodology can be examined to point to inaccuracies in the data*. The more data you collect, from a number of sources, the more you are able to build a more accurate representation of all the data available, rather than just continuing to believe a "1 in 4" slogan that has been shown to give an incomplete picture again and again.


*more effort than I'm prepared to go to for you as I'm not being paid for this, see how that works?

You've cut and paste two terms and some links, but did you really think no one would notice that you have not proven with any evidence where exactly the NGO's or the SAVI report are guilty of this ?

Many posters now have gone to great lengths to demonstrate that statistics are neither true nor false

Really, where did all these 'many' demonstrate, that If for example someone claimed that 90% of Irish people are Chinese that this statistic cannot be either true or false ? lol. Have you tried applying even the most basic logic to your claims before you make them ?

Glenster

Retrospective analyses are very annoying and possibly misleading.

About 1 in 60 people between the ages of 12 and 17 have been proved to have been assaulted by the legal system.

Those people who have unquestionably been sexually assaulted (above) are 14 times more likely to report a sexual assault in college.

Therefore, the logic is that only in in 14 rapes are actually reported.

I don't know anybody that believes this statistic, and the use of it as a shock tactic therefore backfires due to its very obvious nature

The definitions utilised are too catch all, a quick look at them demonstrates that

.........

Candie wrote: »

Just to point out that both children and adults can be very seriously sexually abused without any penetrative aspect: not all abuse that isn't penetrative is minor.

2% of instances quoted may be penetrative but that doesn't mean all other assaults can be dismissed as minor.

Exactly, and unfortunately, even the 2% claim by the poster is not correct.

Lifetime Experience of Sexual Abuse and Assault - SAVI report
The most serious form of abuse, penetrative abuse, was experienced
by 10 per cent of women. Attempted penetration or
contact abuse was experienced by 21 per cent.

• Men:Penetrative abuse was experienced by 3 per cent of men. Attempted penetration or contact abuse was experienced by 18 per cent.

ED E

Just like to thank Wibbs for ripping ......... a proverbial new one. *Hat tip*

.........

ED E wrote: »

Just like to thank Wibbs for ripping ......... a proverbial new one. *Hat tip*

should have read the rest of the thread before you did that . . . we're still waiting on any evidence or proof for these alleged alternative statistics for the levels of sexual abuse in Ireland.

ED E

......... wrote: »

should have read the rest of the thread before you did that . . .

I did, but I dont expect you to understand that.

.........

ED E wrote: »

I did, but I dont expect you to understand that.

yep, asking for any factual evidence or proof of his claims about the Irish statistics for sexual abuse and Irish NGO's that support survivors of sexual abuse, or at least offering accurate alternative statistics for sexual abuse in Ireland seems to causing him problems.

Have you got any ?

ED E

As he said, have they? We're not making claims, they are.

.........

ED E wrote: »

As he said, have they? We're not making claims, they are.

So on exactly what basis are you disputing the Irish NGO's claims and the claims in the SAVI report on, what alternative statistics and evidence have you for Ireland ?

One eyed Jack

......... wrote: »

You've cut and paste two terms and some links, but did you really think no one would notice that you have not proven with any evidence where exactly the NGO's or the SAVI report are guilty of this ?

I never set out to prove anything to you. For the third time now - I don't want you to take my word for anything, I don't want you to take anyone's word for anything. I am encouraging you to do your own research so that you are more informed for yourself.

Really, where did all these 'many' demonstrate, that If for example someone claimed that 90% of Irish people are Chinese that this statistic cannot be either true or false ? lol. Have you tried applying even the most basic logic to your claims before you make them ?

That's exactly what I'm suggesting you do when presented with the statistic that "one in four people in Ireland experience sexual abuse", the title of your own thread. If you actually find it shocking, you're absolutely right to question it. Here is their claim -

Why we exist

In Ireland research has shown that one in four children (27%) will experience sexual abuse before the age of 18. Despite well publicized scandals and reports, many Irish people remain unable to respond to this problem and the long term damage it creates individually and at societal level. Our determined aim is to change this.

Statistics source material: SAVI Report, The Ferns Report , The Ryan Report, The Murphy Report

Here is a brief history of the organisation -

Charity history

One in Four was established as a charity in Ireland in 2002. Set up by Colm O’Gorman, it started out as a public voice for people abused in clerical and institutional settings and provided therapy. Since then, as more people have come forward for help the range of clients and the required services have expanded. We now run a wide range of therapy programmes (individual, group, family, couples and prevention treatment), and an increasingly busy advocacy service, often providing vital support during the criminal justice journey from initial reporting through to trial.

So Colm O' Gorman founded a charity in 2002, and a year later, in 2003 is claiming funding for a salary of €80,000 and a personal secretary -

THE director of One in Four, Colm O'Gorman, who threatened to close the victims-of-abuse organisation last week because of lack of funds, is on a salary of €80,000 a year.

Mr O'Gorman, who also employs a full-time personal assistant, courageously revealed himself as a victim of Wexford paedophile priest Fr Sean Fortune, before he established One in Four in Ireland in May 2002.

But last Thursday week he put the organisation's permanent staff on notice of redundancy after the Department of Health and Children declined to provide an extra €81,000 for its counselling programme. Mr O'Gorman maintains that the department agreed to this funding after discussions last March.

At a meeting in May, 2002, One in Four agreed funding with the Department of Health of €633,000, of which €208,000 was made available to the original organisation in Britain "to assist it in dealing with calls from Ireland".

Of the remaining funding, €302,000 was spent on salaries for its staff; €79,000 was spent on renting and refurbishing offices in Dublin's Holles Street; €5,000 was spent on recruitment and €8,000 on volunteers.

That's not a charity, it's a bloody profitable business.

.........

......... wrote: »

So on exactly what basis are you disputing the Irish NGO's claims and the claims in the SAVI report on, what alternative statistics and evidence have you for Ireland ?

You seem not to have a firm idea of how it works

Org with vested interest: "this thing that in some way supports my vested interest is true. Be convinced to behave in a certain manner that also supports my vested interest"

Punter: "Don't believe that tbh" * does not behave in the certain manner referred to*

You: "If you aren't willing to disprove their statement then...."

Then what? Genuinely curious to know what you think to achieve here.

stefanovich

Candie wrote:

Is sexual abuse to include things like being swatted on the backside in pubs? If that's the case I believe it but it's still misleading. I'd call that harassment rather than abuse.

It includes being ogled by that unattractive creep while wearing your favourite slutty dress. What a perv!

ceadaoin.

Yourself isit wrote: »

Why do we have to spell things out. The number of people reporting actual penatrative abuse is small - about 2%.

The rest of the questions are about less serious things.

It includes being flashed at. That happened to me on a school trip to Paris. I dint consider myself a survivor of child sexual abuse however. But if the survey has questioned me then I would be in there. And that was 12.5% of people.

"Less serious"? Sorry but serious abuse of children can be perpetrated without "penetration" ffs. That doesn't mean it's not "actual" abuse

This kind of attitude is why lots of people are reluctant to come forward or confide in someone, sure it's not like they were raped or anything...

One eyed Jack

ceadaoin. wrote: »

"Less serious"? Sorry but serious abuse of children can be perpetrated without "penetration" ffs. That doesn't mean it's not "actual" abuse

This kind of attitude is why lots of people are reluctant to come forward or confide in someone, sure it's not like they were raped or anything...

I've often heard that said, but how true is it really? It may well apply of course to some people who have been sexually abused as children, but when you say 'lots', that sounds more like speculation to me to be honest. I would suspect more people who have experienced sexual abuse as children are reluctant to come forward or confide in someone out of fear that they won't be believed (among numerous other reasons), than those people who consider themselves to have been sexually abused because someone smacked them on the arse when they were a child.

That's one of the problems with many of these self-reported surveys that are sourced in cultures with different cultural values and perspectives that will have changed over time.

ceadaoin.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I've often heard that said, but how true is it really? It may well apply of course to some people who have been sexually abused as children, but when you say 'lots', that sounds more like speculation to me to be honest. I would suspect more people who have experienced sexual abuse as children are reluctant to come forward or confide in someone out of fear that they won't be believed, than those people who consider themselves to have been sexually abused because someone smacked them on the arse when they were a child.

That's one of the problems with many of these self-reported surveys that are sourced in cultures with different cultural values and perspectives that will have changed over time.

I'm not talking about people who were smacked on the arse, I'm not sure many would consider themselves sexually abused because of that? I'm talking about sexual abuse, touching etc, which the poster I quoted doesn't seem to think is as serious or actual abuse if "penetration" wasn't involved. My point was its more than possible to seriously abuse a child without actually raping them in the strictest definition of the word

One eyed Jack

ceadaoin. wrote: »

I'm not talking about people who were smacked on the arse, I'm not sure many would consider themselves sexually abused because of that?

I couldn't give you exact figures on it but anecdotally at least, yes, there are some people in my experience who do! I didn't contradict them at the time, and I wouldn't, but I'm just giving it as an example to show how some people perceive and process their experiences. Quite recently in fact I had a child make a complaint of sexual assault against another child for an instance that was IMO in no way sexual or could be construed as assault. This particular child can be quite... 'dramatic', and it was everything I could do to restrain myself from telling the child to GTFO. I actually had to sit there and listen to them, while I wondered what kind of a future lies ahead of this child.

I'm talking about sexual abuse, touching etc, which the poster I quoted doesn't seem to think is as serious or actual abuse if "penetration" wasn't involved.

I don't think that was their point really, I think the point they were making is that some of the instances contained in the survey wouldn't qualify as sexual abuse, and they gave an example if I'm not mistaken of some guy in a coat rubbing off them could be construed as sexual abuse by some of the definitions in that survey. I didn't read what they posted as making light of any instances of sexual abuse, but rather pointing out that the circumstances contained in the survey, in their opinion, couldn't be quantified as sexual abuse, but the figures for those instances were being used to shore up the "1 in 4" figure.

patnor1011

......... wrote: »

Instead there seem to be a great wall of silence over this current abuse going on in Irish society though.

Nope.
That statistic say about man and woman being abused as a child. Therefore we can conclude that they were anything between 18-99 when asked about it and if we go by average say 58 then they were children lets presume about 40-50 years ago. That mean that if 1:4 abuse took place 40 years ago it was well within that time when country was in firm grip of priests, nuns & co.
Your wall just crumbled. Please do not try to invent another one.

ceadaoin.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I couldn't give you exact figures on it but anecdotally at least, yes, there are some people in my experience who do! I didn't contradict them at the time, and I wouldn't, but I'm just giving it as an example to show how some people perceive and process their experiences. Quite recently in fact I had a child make a complaint of sexual assault against another child for an instance that was IMO in no way sexual or could be construed as assault. This particular child can be quite... 'dramatic', and it was everything I could do to restrain myself from telling the child to GTFO. I actually had to sit there and listen to them, while I wondered what kind of a future lies ahead of this child.





I don't think that was their point really, I think the point they were making is that some of the instances contained in the survey wouldn't qualify as sexual abuse, and they gave an example if I'm not mistaken of some guy in a coat rubbing off them could be construed as sexual abuse by some of the definitions in that survey. I didn't read what they posted as making light of any instances of sexual abuse, but rather pointing out that the circumstances contained in the survey, in their opinion, couldn't be quantified as sexual abuse, but the figures for those instances were being used to shore up the "1 in 4" figure.

Fair enough, that will teach me to read the whole thread in future rather than jump at a post on the last page! In my own anecdotal experience though, the 1 in 4 thing is accurate and I mean real abuse, not a smack on the arse or even flashing (which in itself is absolutely a violation IMO, although I'm not sure I would class it as abuse)

patnor1011

......... wrote: »

One in four people in Ireland experience sexual abuse.

from oneinfour.ie

"One in four people in Ireland experience sexual abuse. It might be you, someone, you care about or someone you're friendly with."

Does anyone else find this statistic shocking and outraging, and that it is still going on day in day out in so called modern Ireland, behind closed doors by parents, uncles, brothers, neighbours, state/hse care etc. If this statistic is accurate, then there seems to be a huge current day wall of silence in Ireland and in the Irish media about the massive levels of current day ongoing sexual abuse. How does this statistic compare with other countries or is Ireland particularly perverted by comparison ?

Your post is very biased towards suggesting male=sexual predator. Let me fix it up for you as I am all for equality and I also included some usual suspects you somehow omitted but in light of recent events I believe they should be mentioned, they earned their place on that list.

......... wrote: »

One in four people in Ireland experience sexual abuse.

from oneinfour.ie

"One in four people in Ireland experience sexual abuse. It might be you, someone, you care about or someone you're friendly with."

Does anyone else find this statistic shocking and outraging, and that it is still going on day in day out in so called modern Ireland, behind closed doors by parents, uncles, aunts, brothers, sisters, neighbours, state/hse, priests, nuns, care etc. If this statistic is accurate, then there seems to be a huge current day wall of silence in Ireland and in the Irish media about the massive levels of current day ongoing sexual abuse. How does this statistic compare with other countries or is Ireland particularly perverted by comparison ?

patnor1011

......... wrote:

and yet still on about the USA ? the thread is about abuse in Ireland.
So what are the accurate statistics and situation for IRELAND, according to this conspiracy theory that the Irish NGO's are all spinning an inaccurate and manipulated picture of abuse in Ireland ? If they are, I'm open to an alternative credible source, but so far nothing has been provided to back up your claims about figures in Ireland.

You are too much focused on "abuse in Ireland" and somehow think that if statistic is made by Irish NGO it is a bulletproof word of god.

Since you hold "statistics" as a absolute indisputable definition of truth you might want to have a look at it from another perspective.

We all have seen hundreds of statistics made by reputable bodies with budget hundred times better than all of who you mention combined with regard of brexit or us presidential election. Absolute majority of them were totally wrong. Now what make you believe that any of the stats you mentioned are better or different from all of them which went wrong even that they were about a different issue? Just asking.

Every second of your post is your demand to prove that Irish NGO manipulated stats or to disprove their claim.
Well I for one do not see any need to disprove their claim as I regard it as ridiculous one and I also do not need to prove that they manipulate their statistics, I simply put them their stats on a par with all statistics made-believe that UK will remain and Hillary will win.
And that "wall of silence" sounds just like Trump and his "Mexican wall".

Samaris

1:4 is a rather neat number and it seems to be around for too long in too many places to be strictly accurate everywhere. I'm also inclined to agree regarding the original report that it came from.

But... I have been sexually assaulted (which I'd prefer to call it in than "abuse", as to me, "abuse" is a consistent, ongoing issue, but I grant that may be a personal thing) three (one of them, due to my being stronger than him at the time and his complete lack of knowledge of what he was doing only really counts as so-so and it didn't upset me to any great extent even if it did end the relationship. The other two were entirely intentional) times in my life, approximately once per decade I've been around including well-under the age of eighteen. I'd only qualify one of those incidents as "serious", not that the other two should have happened either. Conversations after the last one with a few close friends left me shaken as to how many of those had suffered it too. Of those I spoke with (and I am not close to many people and trust the integrity of those I am close to), four of the five had been sexually assaulted in some way, some as children (as a note, all of these were female*). While I quite understand the difference between talking with a few friends and a nationwide survey*, the very reactions I see, the very lack of anyone ever getting punished for any of those incidences, and the lack of the police apparently giving a flying about a deeply upset child, and the constant "ugh, it's not that high, people qualify "sexual abuse/assault too easily" etcetera etcetera makes me wonder if the numbers aren't higher than most people think.

Yes, we need accurate numbers. No, we will never get them. Do we include just those that resulted in notoriously difficult to get convictions? Is only rape included? Do we include self-reported incidents? But what if there's a LIAR amongst them?! No, those can't be trusted either.

No, we'll never have the real numbers and I doubt many would want them anyway.

*Potential bias source - only spoke to females, who tend to be more likely to be victims of this type of assault, and it's not impossible that there was something that I didn't even notice at the time that made me more likely to speak to them rather than to someone else, an intuition that they might understand. That could create an unconscious bias towards those that - did understand.

*the plural of anecdote is indeed not data, but it can be illustrative.

daheff

......... wrote: »

I find it hard to believe Dublin Rape Crisis centre and CARI who also quote similar figures are also making them up or are also deliberately trying to mislead people.

Start believing. Its called a vested interest.

......... wrote: »

and yet still on about the USA ? the thread is about abuse in Ireland.
So what are the accurate statistics and situation for IRELAND, according to this conspiracy theory that the Irish NGO's are all spinning an inaccurate and manipulated picture of abuse in Ireland ? If they are, I'm open to an alternative credible source, but so far nothing has been provided to back up your claims about figures in Ireland.

as quoted by another 1 in 4 are using US statistics to come up with theirs.

......... wrote: »

I'm still waiting for you to provide any proof or evidence of you claims

Still waiting for you to come up with proof of your claims. Just cos 1 in 4 say it doesnt mean its true. Statistics can be used to prove whatever you want. Going by 1 in 4 are abused, it means 3 in 4 aren't. The majority of people havent been sexually abused by these figures, so its not a problem !! hmm

......... wrote: »

Got any accurate counter figures yet for abuse in Ireland or any thing proving this conspiracy theory about Irish NGO's who do sterling and tireless work to support survivors of sexual abuse ?

what about you? you got any demonstrably accurate figures to prove your original point? Or are you just taking somebody's word for it?

lawred2

25% of Irish people have been sexually abused?

What is covered by the term sexually abused in this case? Who was surveyed?