This research paper attempts to establish a correlation between boyhood sexual abuse, and sexual violence against women perpetrated by adult male victims of CSA.

https://www.tacoma.uw.edu/sites/default/files/sections/SocialWork/Casey%20et%20al%20%20in%20press%20-%20Predicting%20sexual%20aggression.pdf

Okay, I have some feelings about research papers like this (it is not even close to the only one of its kind), let's just start by simply asking the following question: WHAT POSSIBLE PURPOSE COULD THIS HYPOTHESIS SERVE? There is already a general lack of research that prioritizes male victims of sexual abuse, hell it's difficult to find quality research that even acknowledges the existence of male survivors; the few research papers that do focus on male sexual victimization are nearly always doing so because the consequences of male victimization implicate women and girls in some abstract way. This is not an isolated pattern, any official attempt to address vaguely "male" experiences don't seem to get past the gate-keepers unless they first make it clear that while, yes, the research does acknowledge the existence of men and boys (god forbid), it's only doing so in order to solve problematic male behavior responsible in someway for the suffering of... women and girls. Just to be clear, I'm not demonizing women, this shit has feminist ideology written all over it.

Let's consider the implications of a paper such as this in purely utilitarian terms, the intent of the research paper is to discern patterns commonly associated between perpetrates of sexual violence in an attempt to generate behaviorally predictive models for the purpose of "early intervention" programs. It found that there was a positive correlation between sexually aggressive men and childhood sexual abuse, pretty straight forward, but how can this ever be useful? I can only think of a few ways in which this information could be used, and all of them piss me off.

  1. The extant psychological treatment of boys with sexual trauma is overhauled from a treatment that prioritizes the well-being of the kid as its first and foremost concern, to a treatment that regards the traumatized boy as a potential-future predator and therefore prioritizes reconditioning the kid to conform to "non-violent" or "acceptable" behaviors.

  2. Obviously "early intervention" isn't early enough for prospective future rapists boys, so what good does "intervention" do when the crime has already been committed... I ask rhetorically understanding from full-well that this entire fucking research effort has literally ZERO interest in the welfare of traumatized kids it intends to control; um, ya, no thanks, I'll pass.

Here's a line from the paper's section "Purpose of this Study":

Examining child abuse to adult perpetration mechanisms is especially needed in heterogeneous community samples to enhance the generalizability of this line of research beyond college and clinical samples

From the section "Implications":

Further, both the prevalence of CSA in our sample, and CSA’s association with assault perpetration, underscore the need for improved approaches to primary prevention of CSA. Early detection and intervention with sexually abused youth, trauma-informed responsiveness to youth in pediatric and school settings, and indicated violence prevention programming aimed specifically at maltreated youth, could contribute to decreasing sexual assault by interrupting processes that can result in men with abuse histories becoming perpetrators

Is anyone else getting creepy Orwellian vibes from this shit? This University of Washington Professor is advocating for an "intervention" program in schools with the authority to require sexually victimized boy's to submit to the exact forms of therapy his abuser would be court ordered to undertake.
https://www.alliancebhc.org/wp-content/uploads/Adolescents-with-Sexualized-Behavior.pdf

HOW IS THAT NOT THE PUREST AND MOST EGREGIOUS EXAMPLE OF VICTIM BLAMING. HE IS LITERALLY THE VICTIM, AND WE'RE SUPPOSED TO JUST ACCEPT THAT HE OUGHT TO BE TREATED IN THE SAME MANNER AS HIS ABUSER BECAUSE SOME WASHINGTON PROFESSOR IDENTIFIED A 34% CORRELATION BETWEEN SUBJECTIVELY DEFINED ACTS OF "SEXUAL VIOLENCE" AND ANONYMOUS REPORTS OF CSA?

Please tell me I'm not the only who finds this disturbing, I mean the terminology this professor used is beyond problematic. The term "intervention program" in this context literally refers to methods of cognitive behavioral therapy mandated by the state in treating CONVICTED sex offenders. Hence the use of the word "intervention", what the hell has a survivor of sex abuse, a minor no less, done to warrant an intervention? This paper was written by 6 PhDs, I find it very hard to believe that every detail of the paper wasn't considered by at least one of them. Not a single person involved on this paper bothered to ask questions pertaining to the well-being of the only actual abuse survivor it intends to interact with:

What about the kid who just had his innocence stolen in a violation that will leave him psychologically scared for the rest of his life, shouldn't he be the priority?

How can we possibly morally justify persecuting an actual real victim for the sake of an incalculably improbable future victim who doesn't actually exist?

Which of his academic opportunities should we intervene so he can take advantage of this opportunity to learn the complex of subtly art of understanding the very same sexual violation he's already endured?

I get that 'A-priori-assumption' is basically our academic mantra, but isn't it a bit heteronormative of us to assume that he's straight?

Actually, isn't totally transphobic of us to assume he's not a she? And what's the protocol for a spontaneous gender swap, do we still reserve the right to regulate her behavior? Or would that be a violation of her bodily autonomy and agency as an independent women?

Putting the obvious violation of basic human rights aside,

for the implementation of a non-mandatory "intervention" program on the basis that

​

Sorry, I really can't let this go. I'm imagining what it would be like if I had been treated in a manner consistent with this design of this research paper, and god damn, it makes me feel a bit ragey. I imagine myself being approached by someone claiming to know my secret, a secret buried so far down I wouldn't immediately know what she was even talking about. After years of resigned silence, this person is suddenly validating repressed emotions restrained by guilt so overwhelming the sight of passing police cars would literally make me sick with anxiety as a expected to get arrested for something I felt responsible for, but didn't understand. That would have been enough to win my trust, I would have done anything to keep someone around during recesses back then. Obviously, no one in grade school would be told: "welcome at risk 4th grade boys, unfortunately, ya'll already got fucked, this intervention is not for you. It is actually for everyone except for you, which if you think about it is fair, or at least the kind of fair you've been conditioned to expect from a world that failed to protect you from predators, and now demands atonement for the original sin of choicelessly choosing the only choice it offered: 'trust me'; and you did, now that trust is gone, but it wasn't your trust that betrayed the world, it was the world that betrayed yours; only that betraying ,

​

that a minority of the male population is

​

you did fail to defend yourselves and these are the consequences. , neither is life for the satisfaction of bigoted people who see you as nothing more than a threat; participation is mandatory, so the cognitive behavioral therapy won't work, just allow your time to be wasted, and when you graduate highschool you'll be treated with the smug faces of the school board who will claim responsibility for any shred of moral character within you, and probably imply that without therapy you'd be roaming the streets in search of pregnant women to violate" what the purpose of "intervention" is, but everyone would find out eventually

I'm probably overreacting here, but in all seriousness, I have every expectation that within the next few years programs like this are going to be integrated into the school system.

I'm sure they considered the additional layer of stigma a sexually abused boy to keep silent about his experiences, but assuming the boy isn't a misogynist who understands that its his responsibility to incur the same status as his abuser by submitting himself to the very same treatment as his ACTUAL abuser, then I think it's reasonable to expect him to prioritize the welfare of all the hypothetical women and girls he (thankfully) hasn't had the opportunity to attack yet.

I am on the brink of psychological meltdown, I can't see my therapist due to the lock-down, so I thought I'd try to do some research of my own to reassure myself that I've not gone completely insane. In reviewing several studies concerned with male CSA survivors I was able to map a common psychological makeup of other's that experienced CSA under similar circumstances as myself:

"Offenses committed by family members are associated with higher rates of future psychopathology than offenses committed by peers or non-family members."

"Male adolescents who target male victims are more likely to report a history of CSA; furthermore, when male victims are targeted, they are generally younger than the offender."

"In addition, the direct effect of peer isolation accounted for attachment anxiety and reported difficulties in interpersonal relationships with girls and women"

"A history of CSA was also positively correlated with risk for sexually offending and with specific offense patterns and consensual sexual behaviors"

"Prevalence of mental health problems, particularly internalizing symptoms, would be greater for adolescents convicted for sexual offenses with a history of CSA, defined as any unwanted sexual experience before the age of 12."

Nope that just made me feel grosser, honestly the worst part is I understand why men and boys are treated as problems to be solved, as opposed to human beings with innate value who deserve the benefit of the doubt; regardless, the fact that I understand it, doesn't make it suck any less.

It's difficult not to laugh at myself, the Gordian Knot that is my psyche, the weird cycle of feeling ashamed for experiencing basic negative emotions like loneliness, then doubling down on the shame for even acknowledging the emotion. I'm just bitching at this point but I feel compelled to say something unproductive, ignorant, and potentially controversial: with respect exclusively to the "surviving" stage of CSA, I can't help but envy women. Not all men are sexual predators, but the over-whelming majority of sexual predators are men, just a simple fact. I can't help but want for the security that would afford me the privilege of telling someone how the look of emotion on my face betrays the reality of how badly he hurt me, how desperately I'd cry if I could, how ashamed I am of all that I think and feel; all without risking that someone's friendship.