Essentially, sexual predators looking to abuse children will go wherever the children are, be that schools, churches, athletics, social media, online games, and so on. Additionally, certain situations have power dynamics weighted heavily in the direction of the adults, for instance coaches, doctors, pastors, etc, and those dynamics make it far easier for abusers to avoid detection, avoid being reported if caught, and generally maintain their abuse.

Knowing those two facts makes it far easier to avoid abusive situations or properly handle them if they arise. This doesn't mean that you avoid all situations entirely, but a parent may choose to make judgement calls about certain situations, people, or activities based on those facts.

Again, I fully agree that the blame falls on the abusers and not the victims, but that's separate from being situationally aware.

The issue with "properly handle them if they arise" is that ability to properly handle things strongly depends on whether complains are taken seriously (ideally long before it all escalates to high abuse) or not.

That's one judgement call to make, but not the only one. There are lots of different factors that could affect any given situation, but certain situations are safer than others, and there are ways to increase or decrease the safety of many given activities.

> [the] ability to properly handle things strongly depends on whether complains are taken seriously...

This is huge, and is actually a good example of how a parent might increase the safety of a situation - parents that are involved in their children's lives, are aware of what's going on, and, critically, believe their children if they communicate that something is uncomfortable or anything happened go a long way towards both deterrence and handling things that do happen. Child abusers generally gravitate towards opportunity, so obstacles in the way of that opportunity like an aware parent decrease the likelihood that abuse will happen with that child.

There's a ton of systemic problems with complaints being taken seriously though, in society at large, in institutions, and with all people, not just children.

Any just a bit ambitious position have older men in position to pressure. And low paid jobs are ripe for abuse like that, because employees have zero power. I dont mean to say that abuse is everywhere. But the above quote does not describe some kind of unusual rare situation. It is pretty much everywhere.

Also, the parents believing is not the only nor the most important people who needs to believe. The parents taking their daughter away are not making abuser go away. Abuser just moves on another target. That is not solving the problem, that is just shifting victims until one does not know how to talk about it or have to make hard choice or is otherwise unprotected.

The issue with these institutions typically are years of cover ups of evidence.

I sincerely don't want to "blame the victim". I also don't understand where that line falls. I've felt that accusing a speaker of "victim blaming" is sometimes used as a way to shout them down in a discussion (or worse, target them for being "canceled" in their life outside of Internet discourse-- hence my use of a throwaway account here).

I do not culturally accept sexually predatory behavior. It is wrong. It should be prosecuted. I do not have a "men will be men" attitude. I also accept that I can't change the culture of institutions myself, no matter how fiercely I believe what I believe.

- Am I "victim blaming" if I talk to my daughter about the existence of sexual predators and her vulnerability?

- Am I in the wrong if I caution her about institutions or settings that have historically adopted a "men will be men" attitude?

- Am I in the wrong if I explain the realpolitik that individuals' rejection of "men will be men" doesn't automatically change the entrenched attitudes of organizations that might systematically act to shield predators and ignore vitims?

- I've already had the conversation about how people are generally good, but that we have to be cautious because there are people with criminal motivations, or mental illness, that might cause them to want to hurt us in a general sense (non-sexual violence). Am I "victim blaming" if I talk to her about general situational awareness, being cautious, and not putting yourself into situations where general violence might occur?

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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".

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.

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.

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..

"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.