[takbw4234]

> The solution (...) [i]s to fix the cultural acceptance of sexually predatory behavior toward women

No, sorry, you're taking the wrong angle here. There's no wide ranging cultural acceptance of sexually predatory behavior, that's why they're called sexual predators and not sex-positive mentors.

And they're attracted like flies to shit to positions of power in these kind of institutions. Please do shelter the victims if you can, and warn them all they're setting themselves up for this kind of abuse.

And yeah, jail the bastards who do act on it, of course. I might as well say that if that's not clear already. But there is a legion behind the ones that get caught vying for those spots for the very same reasons.

[falcolas]

> There's no wide ranging cultural acceptance of sexually predatory behavior

Were that the case, there wouldn't be these kinds of cases where entire swaths of predators are being shielded (or ignored). It may not be openly discussed or acknowledged, but as they say, actions speak louder than words.

And, fwiw, there are female sexual predators as well; best to not ignore them.

[Chris2048]

> actions speak louder than words

that doesn't really follow when those actions are explicitly hidden, or denied. If it was generally accepted, why would they need to hide?

The case being made here is one of indifference, and not just of sexual abuse, but any negative effects that don't directly benefit Varsity.

[falcolas]

The action I'm referring to here is the indifference. The hiding, the denial. Using the phrase "boys will be boys".

That's the action that's speaking out here. And it's a problem that's broader than Varsity.

[Chris2048]

But the indifference is on Varsities part, specifically; and it seems it was in a position to threaten anyone who knew about what it was hiding.

Who used the phrase "boys will be boys" in this situation?

[mcguire]

You don't consider indifference to be acceptance?

[Chris2048]

Maybe, but on Varsities part. OP talked about "wide ranging cultural acceptance" which I consider "societal".

A monopolist hiding behaviour from society doesn't sound like societal acceptance, it sounds like the opposite: hiding behaviour it knew isn't accepted.

[starkred]

> There's no wide ranging cultural acceptance of sexually predatory behavior

There is as long as the solution is "keep women away from sexual predators" instead of "keep sexual predators away from women". Keeping girls away from competitive sports is yet another example of "boys will be boys".

[bena]

The issue is you cannot tell me what a sexual predator looks like. Or, more disturbingly, you can. Because they look like you, they look like me, they look like everyone.

So a policy of "keep sexual predators away from children" just cannot work. That's a game you have to win every time. They just have to win once. One mistake and you've just allowed a predator access to children. And it's not like they'll stop.

And note, I say children, not women, because we aren't talking about the abuse of adults, we're talking about people sexually preying on children.

So I'm sorry. "Just stop criminals from committing crime" is a intellectually bankrupt argument.

The issue is that the problem is vast and multifaceted. We have to balance safety with allowing these children access to these things. And on some level, these children will have to become proactive members of their own safety. Whether we want them to be or not, they will have to be responsible to some degree.

And, no, it shouldn't be necessary. But we ultimately have to deal with the world as it is, not as it ought to be.

[blackbear_]

Nice word play, but what is a practical, pragmatic solution to achieve that?

[mcguire]

Actually investigate and prosecute reports rather than saying, "well, yeah, you shouldn't have been there."

Make it economically infeasible for companies like Varsity and their related organizations to ignore. And yes, you will get a lot of push back, using libertarian, freedom-related arguments.

[starkred]

Teach your damn boys for once.

[lefrenchy]

> Please do shelter the victims if you can, and warn them all they're setting themselves up for this kind of abuse.

Are you serious? You want to make victims feel responsible for being assaulted and taken advantage of? They must already feel an incredible sense of shame and guilt, the answer is absolutely not to tell them they are “setting themselves up” by pursuing their interests or passions..

[jtbayly]

No. We want to prevent them from becoming victims in the first place. Hence the word "warn" as opposed to the phrase "you had it coming."

[lefrenchy]

> warn them all they're setting themselves up for this kind of abuse

"Setting themselves up for this kind of abuse" has a very similar ring to "you had it coming".

People can be abused in so many different environments (sports, school, church, politics). We can't prevent them from participating in any of these things, and tell them they're "setting themselves up" if they do. That's absurd and will never serve to actually fix the root cause of the problem.

There are a host of cultural issues (over-sexualization, hyper masculinity, etc...) that contribute to the pervasiveness of abuse, and without addressing those we will never solve anything. We can also educate our children (or people more generally) on what is an is not acceptable behavior from people in those positions of power doing the abuse.