The story in the link below, which reveals how 1400 girls were sexually abused in Rotherham, England over a 16 year period is, to my mind, sociologically interesting.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/02/world/europe/reckoning-starts-in-britain-on-abuse-of-girls.html?emc=edit_th_20140902&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=46309869&_r First, a relevant quote: > It has highlighted another uncomfortable dimension of the issue, that > of race relations in Britain. The victims identified in the report > were all white, while the perpetrators were mostly of Pakistani > heritage, many of them working in nighttime industries like taxi > driving and takeout restaurants. The same was true in recent > prosecutions in Oxford, in southern England, and the northern towns of > Oldham and Rochdale, where nine men of Pakistani, Bangladeshi and > Afghan origin were given long prison sentences in 2012 for abusing up > to 47 girls. Investigators in Scotland have reportedly uncovered a > similar pattern of abuse. > Why were all the girls white? Why were there no Pakistani or other Asian girls who were abused? No one seems to have asked the question. Let me hazard a guess. There is a culture of allowing children more freedom among white households in Britain. Girls in Pakistani and other Asian families are supervised, shielded and burdened with the idea that family honour revolves around their chastity. Honour killings are, after all, an offshoot of this. A whole lot of reports about the 1,400 abused girls of Rotherham speak of how "vulnerable" these girls were and how the vulnerability was exploited. Of course young children, boys or girls are vulnerable. That is a banal truism. Vulnerable people need protection. Whose responsibility is it to protect vulnerable children, the state or the family? In Britain the state attempts to protect vulnerable children from physical and emotional abuse by parents. The state lays down parenting laws that ensures that minor deviations that may arise out of disciplining children can lead to jail sentences for parents. On the other hand the laws governing underage sex are ignored if it is deemed consensual. What this means is that disciplining children can get parents punished. Allowing these "vulnerable" children to have consensual sex attracts no punishment. The system seem to have things the wrong way round. Exactly what is going on? shiv
