Invisible Boy Chp. 3 (cont'd)

[M. Lafontaine]

Physical Abuse, Corporal Punishment, and Neglect

There appears to be some truth to the notion that violence begets violence.
Children with a history of physical abuse and corporal punishment are more
aggressive, possess fewer internal controls for their behaviour, have
higher rates of involvement in crime and violence as adults, and are more
likely to abuse siblings or attack parents Bandura and Walters, 1959;
Bryan and Freed, 1982; Eron, 1982; Hirschi, 1969; Sears et al., 1957;
Straus et al., 1980; Welsh, 1978; Widom, 1989). Men and women who were
physically punished are also more likely to abuse their partners or spouses
(Straus, 1991). The highest predictors of involvement in crime and delinquency
are: being hit once per week or more at 11 years of age and having a mother,
at that age, with strong beliefs in, and a commitment to, corporal punishment
(Newson and Newson, 1990).

There is some evidence to suggest that adults hit as adolescents are more
likely to develop depression or engage in suicidal ideation than those
who are not hit, regardless of sex, socioeconomic status, drinking problems,
marital violence, or whether children witnessed violence between their parents.
In fact the more one is hit the greater the likelihood depression will
be a consequence (Straus, 1994).

Straus suggests four consequences of corporal punishment. At the immediate
level it leads to escalation, where a resistant child forces the parent to
use increasing amounts of force which could cause serious injury. At the
developmental level, the more corporal punishment is used, the more it will
have to be used because the child will be less likely to develop internalized
controls for behaviour. At the macro-cultural level, corporal punishment
creates a society that approves of violence to correct wrongdoing. At the
inter-generational level, it increases the chance that when the child is an
adult he or she will approve of interpersonal violence, be in a violent
marriage,and be depressed.

Assessing the impact of neglect is difficult, since its effects are likely
to be inseparable from problems related to living in a dangerous or high
stress home environment, living in an unsafe neighbourhood or community,
living in poverty, poor parental skills, parental mental health problems,
parental criminality or substance abuse or addiction, and inter-parental
violence. Here the effects are likely similar for male and female victims.
Health problems related to non-organic failure to thrive, dental caries,
malnutrition, anemia, and low levels of immunity protection could
also be expected.

The Consequences of "Male Sexual License"

Males, generally, have more permission to be sexual persons in our society.
A double standard of morality has been applied to males and female for
centuries. The fact that there are no "positive" or flattering terms such as
"sowing his wild oats", "boys will be boys", or "ladies man" for females
gives vivid illustration to this point. It is generally assumed that
having "license" to be a sexual person is an advantage. Males are seen
to get power from obtaining or taking sex, women from withholding sex.

However, sexual license has serious consequences for male victims.
It increases a boy’s susceptibility to sexual abuse by promoting or
encouraging participation in sexual activities. It promotes secrecy
because boys are afraid to report sexual experiences that go wrong
for fear they are responsible and blameworthy. It effects our
perceptions as professional caregivers, encourages victim-blaming,
and supports minimization of the impact on victims of male on male
sexual assault or female perpetrated sexual assault. It causes males
to expect female sexual contact. It promotes risk-taking sexual
behaviour and creates expectations for males that they must be the
initiators of sex and have sexual knowledge and experience.