Wednesday, February 28, 2018

Every Yeshiva - Boys & Girls - MUST HAVE VIDEO CAMERAS IN EVERY CLASSROOM - IN EVERY PUBLIC AREA - FOR SO MANY REASONS! Find Out If You Qualify For NY Safe Act Funding


  • Prevent Vandalism: ...
  • Protect Vehicles: ...
  • Eliminate Unauthorized Intruders: ...
  • Keep an Eye on Remote Entrances/Exits & Off Limit Areas: ...
  • Watch Busy Corridors: ...
  • Monitor Bathroom Entrance: ...
  • Deter Sex Offenders. ...
  • Prevent Bullying.

Running a school is a huge responsibility.

The larger the school, the more there is that can go wrong. Fortunately, surveillance technology can make your job a lot easier and your school a lot safer. Many schools have invested in surveillance technology and have reaped the benefits of having a more secured school.

So, what benefits can a surveillance system bring to schools?

School Security

Deter Crime & Reduce Break-ins: 

When security cameras a placed in plain sight they have been shown to reduce criminal activity in that area. No one wants to be recorded on camera committing a crime. In fact students will point out the cameras to other students which will make everyone aware that their activities are being recorded.  When students know they are being watched, they are usually on their best behavior.

Prevent Vandalism: 

Placing cameras on the interior and exterior of you school will help to prevent vandalism. In the event that an incident does occur, you will have recorded evidence so you can take the proper course of action.

Protect Vehicles: 

Keeping an eye on your schools’ parking lot will help to protect your staff’s vehicles.  There are times when an incident occurs and it is hard to tell who is at fault.  With the proper surveillance, you will know exactly what happened and who is at fault.

Eliminate Unauthorized Intruders:

Unfortunately, schools are targets for unscrupulous people. They tend to prey on students because they see them as easy targets.  The last thing you need is for one of these people to get into your school undetected.  With the proper security equipment, you can prevent unauthorized intruders.

Keep an Eye on Remote Entrances/Exits & Off Limit Areas:

Watching your entry and exit points are crucial for the proper security of your school. By having security cameras (with motion detection technology) in pre-selected areas, you will be instantly notified when movement is detected.  You will be able to instantly see through the camera that detected the motion to see what is going on. With our technology you can have access to your security system through your PC, laptop, tablet, mobile phone or any other internet connected device.  Best of all, every teacher, security guard, and any other authorized staff can have access as well.  In case of an emergency, everyone will know exactly what is going on.

Watch Busy Corridors: 

In crowded areas, things tend to happen simply because there more people.  Most of the times these incidents are minor and can be ignored. When a major incident happens,  you will have the information you need.

Monitor Bathroom Entrance:  

Many incidents take place in the bathrooms in schools that you may not become aware of until after the fact.  It is illegal to have any type of surveillance recording system in the bathrooms, but you can keep an eye on students as they enter and leave the rest rooms.  This will help you, if an incident occurs, to determine exactly who was there.  Also, our systems are capable of unlimited video data storage. This feature is invaluable when it comes to determining who was present for an incident that happened many months or even years ago.

School Safety

Deter Sex Offenders

By law in NY State, a sex offender cannot live within 1,000 feet of a school. By having highly visible surveillance cameras around your school, you greatly deter the presence of these criminals.

Prevent Bullying

Unfortunately, bullying is a part of life at all schools in one form or another.  When you have security cameras in plain sight, you greatly decrease the chances bullying on school grounds.  This helps to provide a safe environment for students to learn in.

Aide in Emergency Evacuation

In case of an emergency, surveillance cameras can show you where the trouble spots are so you can direct everyone in safe direction. By making sure all staff members have access to the security system’s alert feature, they will be notified when something goes wrong.

 Find Out If You Qualify For NY Safe Act Funding

There is grant money available for nonpublic schools through the NY Safe Act, if you are eligible. 

Monday, February 26, 2018

A Shabbos In The Life of Hershel Schachter's Convert...

WATCH VIDEO: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5429251/Ivanka-flashes-heart-Team-USA.html#v-4785651019990939479

Today, the First Daughter was pictured, in a Team USA hat and red snowsuit, cheering and smiling as she watched snowboarders vying for medals at the men's Big Air competition at the Pyeongchang Olympics.

She was joined in the stands by South Korean President Moon Jae-in, Kim Jung-sook, International Olympic Committee member and 1998 ice hockey gold medalist Angela Ruggiero, as well as a rather gloomy looking White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders.

The trio watched as Team USA's Kyle Mack landed himself an Olympic silver medal in the men's snowboard big air, with some impressive stunts and twisting leap called the ‘Bloody Dracula’. Gold went to Canada’s Sebastien Toutant and bronze to Britain’s Billy Morgan.

Ivanka, who will lead the U.S. delegation at the closing ceremony Sunday, was later seen posing for selfies and chatting with Kim Jung-suk.



Schachter Actively Participated and Signed Off On The Conversion of Trump - Trust Him With Nothing!

Hershel Schachter (born July 28, 1941) is a rabbi and rosh yeshiva at Rabbi Isaac Elchanan Theological Seminary (RIETS), Yeshiva University, in New York City,[1] and the son of the late Rabbi Melech Schachter, who was also a rosh yeshiva at Yeshiva University.[2] A Talmudic scholar and a posek, he is also a halakhic advisor for the kashrut division of the Orthodox Union.[3]

Schachter knew the psak from Rabbi Moshe Feinstein to be the prevailing law on Orthodox conversions --- He was bought and paid for by Charlie Kushner: Rabbi Moshe Feinstein states the very marriage of a gentile woman to a non observant Jew, is equivalent to an open declaration that she will not observe the precepts. This is so, because it is highly unlikely that the gentile member of such a union, will be more committed to Judaism than her remiss Jewish husband (certainly when they are living together prior to their marriage). Unlike mental or tacit negations, explains Rav Feinstein, open declarations do invalidate conversions. When such cases appear before a rabbinical court, its members actually become witnesses to an acceptance declaration that is not sincere. Therefore, it is no longer a tacit insincerity, but rather an obvious one. As such, they are forbidden to sanction the conversion. Regardless of what this Jewish court may declare, the conversion is invalid and the person is not deemed a member of the Jewish nation. In Iggros Moshe, Letters of Moshe (Yoreh De’ah, no. 157), he writes that “According to the Law, it is certain that one who converts for the sake of marriage, does not intend to keep the commandments, and is not a proselyte at all.”


Rabbi David Bleich on the Conversion Crisis - Considered by Most Jewish Scholars as a Posek of the Greatest Stature

The questions posed with regard to problematic contemporary conversions are threefold in nature:

Rabbi Bleich
  (1) Is it permissible for rabbinical courts to accept prospective candidates for conversion when it appears that application is made, not out of religious conviction, but as a matter of convenience, e.g., to facilitate marriage with a Jewish partner?

 (2) Is a conversion of convenience, i.e., one undertaken for marriage or other ulterior motive in which the petitioner obviously has no intention of abiding by the precepts of Judaism, a valid one?
 (3) Granting the validity and propriety of the conversion itself, is it permissible for the convert to enter into marriage with a Jewish spouse with whom the convert has consorted prior to conversion?

PLEASE READ THE ENTIRE ESSAY:
 
http://theunorthodoxjew.blogspot.com/2017/03/rabbi-david-bleich-on-conversion-crisis.html

Friday, February 23, 2018

"He's A Real Nowhere Man, Sitting In His Nowhere Land..."



Rabbi skips town after charges laid for multiple sex offences: Winnipeg police

A warrant for Rabbi Yacov Simmonds's arrest was issued in October


Rabbi Yacov Simmonds, 42, was terminated from his position as the director of development at Chabad-Lubavitch of Winnipeg, the local branch of a larger Orthodox Jewish movement.
Rabbi Yacov Simmonds, 42, was terminated from his position as the director of development at Chabad-Lubavitch of Winnipeg, the local branch of a larger Orthodox Jewish movement. (Tanner Grywinski/CBC) 
Police believe that Rabbi Yacov Simmonds, 42, has been hiding out somewhere in the United States after a warrant was issued for his arrest on three counts of sexual assault, three counts of sexual interference and two counts of invitation to sexual touching.
'We believe this individual has fled to the United States. Yacov Simmonds is aware of the warrant and we feel he is actively evading police.'  - Winnipeg police spokesman Const. Jay Murray
"We believe this individual has fled to the United States. Yacov Simmonds is aware of the warrant and we feel he is actively evading police," Winnipeg police spokesman Const. Jay Murray told CBC News.

"We have spoken to this individual … and for that reason, we know this individual is aware there is a warrant."

Simmonds had been terminated the previous year as the director of development at Chabad-Lubavitch of Winnipeg — the local branch of a larger Orthodox Jewish movement — when police first began their investigation in May of 2017.

It is still an ongoing, active investigation so police could offer few details on the matter. They could not comment on what efforts have been made to locate Simmonds, whether police had made contact with authorities in the United States, or further details on the alleged victims.

Sexual interference involves touching a part of the body of any child under the age of 16.

CBC could not reach Simmonds for comment. None of these allegations have been proven in court.

Alleged incidents date back years

Police say it is possible that by the time they concluded the investigation in October 2017, which was led by the child abuse unit, Simmonds had already fled the country.

"It is very possible that this individual got wind of the investigation, then fled and then the warrant was issued," Murray said.

The charges relate to incidents that occurred before Simmonds began working for the Chabad-Lubavitch organization around 2000, the organization's board of directors said in a prepared statement.

He primarily acted as a fundraiser for the organization and movement.

The allegations were first brought to the organization's attention in January 2016, prior to the police investigation, "after which the centre concluded an agreement to terminate Rabbi Simmonds' employment," the organization wrote in the prepared statement.

"As the matter is now before the courts and out of respect for the families involved, we have no further comment to make at this time."

Termination announced in 2016

Simmonds was terminated and his departure was officially announced in August 2016.

"Rabbi Yacov Simmonds is currently embarking on a career change; by mutual agreement he is no longer part of the rabbinical staff or administration of Chabad-Lubavitch of Winnipeg," the centre announced on its website in August 2016.

"Chabad-Lubavitch expresses sincere gratitude to Rabbi Yacov Simmonds for his years of devoted work and tremendous accomplishments for Chabad and for Winnipeg's Jewish Community. We wish him success in his future endeavors."

Chabad-Lubavitch is a sect of the Hasidic movement, one of the largest Orthodox Jewish movements in the world. The Winnipeg centre opened its doors in 1972. It offers summer and winter camps for youth, operates the Jewish Learning Centre on Mathers Avenue and offers a range of other services.



http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/rabbi-yachov-charged-1.4539986



Thursday, February 22, 2018

The Real Billy Graham Was an Outright Vile Jew-Hater ---“A lot of Jews are great friends of mine,” Graham told Nixon in 1972. “They swarm around me and are friendly to me. Because they know that I am friendly to Israel and so forth. But they don’t know how I really feel about what they’re doing to this country, and I have no power and no way to handle them.” Graham also said that the Jewish “stranglehold” on the media “has got to be broken or this country’s going down the drain.”



Billy Graham, who championed Israel in public, (not because he loved Israel or the Jews) and derided Jews in private, dead at 99....Nixon aide H.R. Haldeman first mentioned Graham’s antisemitic remarks in a 1994 book, which Graham strongly denied. But when audio tapes from the Nixon White House were released in 2002, Graham could be heard referring to Jews as pornographers and agreeing with Nixon that the US media was dominated by liberal Jews and could send the United States “down the drain.”

 



WASHINGTON (JTA) — Billy Graham, the giant of American evangelism who was exalted by Jews for his championing of Israel at its hour of need and then condemned when a nasty anti-Semitic streak was revealed, has died.

Graham, 99, died at his home in Montreat, North Carolina, media reported. He was a counselor to Democratic and Republican presidents and, with his massive arena appearances, was a precursor of the Protestant televangelism that helped reshape the American religious and political landscapes. His son, Franklin, is one of President Donald Trump’s highest-profile religious supporters.

The elder Graham was an early and avid backer of Israel. A tour of the country in 1960 raised the country’s profile among American evangelicals, establishing the seeds of strong pro-Israel support that persist in that community until now. In 1967, he urged Israeli leaders not to yield to diplomatic pressures that could endanger the country’s security; such entreaties, commonplace now on the American right, were unusual at the time. He made a film, “His Land,” about Israel that continues to be screened among pro-Israel evangelicals.

Graham also was a champion for the Jews persecuted in the former Soviet Union and counseled his evangelical brethren not to proselytize Jews.

“Just as Judaism frowns on proselytizing that is coercive, or that seeks to commit men against their will, so do I,” Graham told an American Jewish Committee delegation that met with him in 1973.

He received awards from the organized Jewish community and was so beloved in its precincts that in 1994, when H. R. Haldeman, a former top aide to President Richard Nixon, revealed Graham’s lacerating anti-Semitism expressed in private talks with Nixon, the Jewish community dismissed Haldeman’s account out of hand.

Tapes from the Nixon Library released in 2002 validated Haldeman’s account, however.

“A lot of Jews are great friends of mine,” Graham told Nixon in 1972. “They swarm around me and are friendly to me. Because they know that I am friendly to Israel and so forth. But they don’t know how I really feel about what they’re doing to this country, and I have no power and no way to handle them.”

Graham also said that the Jewish “stranglehold” on the media “has got to be broken or this country’s going down the drain.”

In 2002, Graham apologized for the remarks, and Jewish community leaders accepted his apology — but the relationship would never again be the same.

“We knew that Nixon was an anti-Semite,” Abraham Foxman, then the Anti-Defamation League’s national director, told JTA at the time, whereas Graham is “a guy we all felt comfortable with … And he was so infected with this virulent anti-Semitism.”

Rabbi A. James Rudin, the AJC’s senior interreligious adviser, wrote in a statement Wednesday that Graham regretted his remarks about Jews and Judaism.

“He publicly apologized for them and asked for forgiveness during his 2002 ‘Crusade’ in New York City,” Rudin wrote. “I had a private conversation with him at that time, where he expressed deep personal remorse and asked me to convey his sincere apologies to the entire Jewish community.”



 

Billy Graham died



In all honesty (but I'm always honest, of course), I didn't know Billy Graham was still alive. It turns out he was 99, and died today at his home in North Carolina.  He was known as the "Pastor to Presidents", and was there for every American President from Harry Truman through Barack Obama. One of the first televangelists, he was a Southern Baptist estimated to have preached to more humans than anyone in the history of Christianity.  Through his "crusades" (400 of them in 185 countries), he's said to have persuaded over 3 million people to "accept JC as their personal lord and savior."
What a waste of a life—preaching fiction and delusion to the masses. My sympathies go to his family and friends, but at least one of his sons is continuing the charade.



https://www.jta.org/2018/02/21/news-opinion/politics/billy-graham-who-championed-israel-in-public-and-derided-jews-in-private-dies-at-99?utm_source=JTA%20Maropost&utm_campaign=JTA&utm_medium=email&mpweb=1161-3028-21723

Wednesday, February 21, 2018

Every now and again, along comes somebody, or some new technology, or both, capable of taking this raw human material and shaping it into a crazed, baying, hypnotized mob that is convinced the Great Leader has come. Whatever this Messiah says goes. The moon is a balloon, if he says so; and entire communities with the wrong beliefs or shade of skin are chopped liver....




Peter Finch as Howard Beale in the 1976 film “Network,”
 

 “Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.”― George Carlin“Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity"...


"Much more effective than the ointment and can be used on Shabbos"

People are weak. They are susceptible. They are easily manipulated through their fears. They long to prostrate themselves. They can be led by the nose into the gutter. The angels of their better natures, if they’ve ever given a moment’s thought to them, are a lot less powerful than the devils of their diabolical urges.

They lie, they exploit, they seek distraction at any price from the monotony of existence. The life of humankind, as Hobbes famously put it, is “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” Especially short: You no sooner begin to get the hang of it, learn a few useful tricks like lowered expectations, than it’s over. Poof!

This is the basic setup. Society is an exercise in trying to offset horrors through law and convention.

Every now and again, along comes somebody, or some new technology, or both, capable of taking this raw human material and shaping it into a crazed, baying, hypnotized mob that is convinced the Great Leader has come. Whatever this Messiah says goes. The moon is a balloon, if he says so; and entire communities with the wrong beliefs or shade of skin are chopped liver.

Examples? Dear reader, I respect you too much to belabor the obvious. Look around. The wealthiest society on earth is currently subjected to the chaotic rule of a mean and vulgar charlatan who refined the manipulation of humanity through a TV show that was a ratings smash in its first season, continued under his guidance for more than a decade, and relied on the cruelty of whimsical humiliation for its frisson. Donald Trump had a solid education in the power of images, the flimsiness of objective reality, and the magnetism of authority.

“I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose any voters, O.K.?” he declared during the campaign. Let’s hand it to Trump: he was right. Americans voted him into office after he said that. They were ready to roll the dice, even on nuclear war, if the alternative was to be bored. They were mad.

There’s not much new under the sun. Long before Facebook and Twitter and Russian trolls on social media, the potential to combine the bombardment of visual media, the “genius” of an individual (Trump’s word), and mass disorientation to forge dystopian madness had been imagined.

So here’s a little test. The following three passages are not in chronological order. Which came first, and when do they date from?

“We deal in illusions, man! None of it is true! But you people sit there, day after day, night after night, all ages, colors, creeds. We’re all you know. You’re beginning to believe the illusions we’re spinning here. You’re beginning to think the tube is reality and that your own lives are unreal. You do whatever the tube tells you.”

Here’s the second: “This whole country’s just like my flock of sheep! Rednecks, crackers, hillbillies, hausfraus, shut-ins, pea-pickers — everybody that’s got to jump when somebody else blows the whistle….. They’re mine. I own ’em. They think like I do. Only they’re even more stupid than I am, so I gotta think for them.”

And finally: “The stresses set up by the social changes wrought by the advent of technology are straining the structure of civilization beyond the limits of tolerance. The machine does our work for us and meekly comes and goes at our bidding. But it inexorably demands its wages.”

The answers are: the first dates from 1976 and is from the extraordinary Sidney Lumet movie “Network,” written by Paddy Chayefsky. The second, from 1957, appears in the equally prescient Elia Kazan movie “A Face in the Crowd,” written by Budd Schulberg. (Watch them both if you want to understand Trump.) The third dates from 1938. It’s a passage from my father’s high school magazine in Johannesburg that I stumbled on while researching my last book. “Civilization,” of course, would collapse a year later when Hitler invaded Poland.

“Network” traces the apotheosis of a news anchor, Howard Beale, who goes off-script on TV, raging against the world and television — their lies and manipulations — and develops a following with his unforgettable cri de coeur: “I’m as mad as hell, and I’m not going to take this any more!” His ratings, previously in a dive, soar. “A Face in the Crowd” also follows a media sensation, Lonesome Rhodes, who parlays his charm and popular touch into a meteoric rise to national television. He is a fraud, with startling instincts for human weakness, who takes everyone in.

Beale, whose rise begins when he announces he will commit suicide live on TV, succumbs in the end to the terrible logic of his success when he is assassinated during his show.

Rhodes is undone by a hot mic as he dissects the idiocy of the Americans he has entranced: “Those morons out there? Shheh, I can take chicken fertilizer and sell it to ’em for caviar. I can make them eat dog food and they’ll think it’s steak ... You know what the public’s like? A cage full of guinea pigs."

Somewhere, a hot mic is waiting for Trump. Its name might be the Mueller investigation, whose painstaking nature is making him hotheaded. People are dumb, but they know when their president is compromised. As a wise man once observed, “You can’t fool all the people all the time.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/20/opinion/trump-network-film-populism.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=opinion-c-col-left-region&region=opinion-c-col-left-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-left-region


Tuesday, February 20, 2018

How did America rise up from a backwoods country to be one of the greatest nations the world has ever known? We pioneered industries, and all this required the greatest innovations in science and technology--in the world. And so science is a fundamental part of the country that we are. But in this, the 21st century, when it comes time to make decisions about science it seems to me people have lost the ability to judge what is true and what is not, what is reliable, what is not reliable, what should you believe what you do not believe....





That's not the country I remember growing up in. Not that we didn't have challenges. I'm old enough to remember the 60s and the 70s--got a hot war and a cold war civil rights movement and all this was going on. But I don't remember any time where people were standing in denial of what science was. One of the great things about science is that it is an entire exercise in finding what is true. The hypothesis, you test. I get a result. A rival of mine double checks it. Because they think I might be wrong. They perform an even better experiment than I did, and they find out, hey, this experiment matches. Oh my gosh, we're onto something here! And out of this rises a new emergent truth...


Monday, February 19, 2018

Sexual Abuse in the Orthodox Jewish Community - " From my perspective as a psychiatrist and psychoanalyst, I believe that there is still not enough being done in Orthodox communities to prevent sexual abuse of children. The areas which I believe would be the most productive are preventive education for parents and children, and mandatory criminal background checks for all employees of day schools, seminaries, yeshivas, and summer camps."

 

by Nachum Klafter, MD - Guest Blogger

 

Printed with authorization of the author. His complete bio appears at the end of this post.


 An academic paper about sexual abuse among Orthodox Jews, "History of Past Sexual Abuse in Married Jewish Women," was published in the November, 2007 issue of the American Journal of Psychiatry (AJP) by Rachel Yehuda, PhD, et al. This paper has generated significant controversy in the Orthodox Jewish world. For the most part, the controversy is actually a reaction to an article in The New York Jewish Week (10/25/2007) by Debra Nussbaum Cohen, "No Religious Haven From Abuse," which characterizes the AJP study as follows: "New study finds Orthodox women are sexually victimized as much as other American women are."[2] Orthodox Jewish mental health professionals have been debating the significance of the data from the AJP paper. The following is my critique of the study.[3] My remarks will be organized in the following three sections:
  1. My demonstration that the AJP paper draws no conclusions about the rate of sexual abuse in the Orthodox community, and no conclusions about a comparison with the rate in the general population. The nature of this study would preclude any such findings, as I will clarify. In fact, this is clearly stated in the AJP paper. Therefore, the New York Jewish Week article by Debra Nussbaum Cohen is a gross misrepresentation of the study by Dr. Yehuda, et al.

  2. My critique of the paper, including my defense against some of its detractors.

  3. My recommendations for what the Orthodox community should and should not conclude from this study.
Part 1: This paper does not draw any conclusions about the rate of sexual abuse in the Orthodox Community. The New York Jewish Week's reporting of this study is entirely inaccurate.

The AJP study can be summarized as follows: The investigators recruited observant, married women to answer an anonymous questionnaire "examining sexual life in marriage among observant women." Subjects were sought "across a large range of religious Jewish communities by advertising through synagogue bulletins, Jewish organizations, newspapers, Jewish oriented web-sites and list-serves, and a network of medical professionals… whose practices consisted of sizable numbers of Orthodox Jewish women." (p. 1700) Self-report of regular Mikvah use was the key inclusion criterion for this study. 26% of the total respondents (N=380) reported sexual abuse at least once, and 16% reported occurrence of abuse before age 13. Some very interesting patterns were observed. Ba'alei teshuva in their sample reported sexual abuse histories in this survey about twice as frequently as women raised in an Orthodox home, (36% vs. 19%).(p. 1701) Women who defined themselves as "ultra-Orthodox" reported abuse more frequently than those who defined themselves as "Modern Orthodox." Other interesting findings are reported, but I believe that these are the most significant with respect to the ensuing controversy.

The authors briefly comment on the rate of sexual abuse in the general population. In the Discussion (p. 1703), they state:

These estimates are consistent with data from several national surveys, in which 25%-27% of women, regardless of marital status or religious affiliation, reported sexual abuse A meta-analytic study by Gorey and Leslie concluded that approximately 22% of women report childhood sexual abuse, a figure slightly higher than was noted in the present study.
The investigators made no attempt to measure the rate in the general population in this study. Therefore, a statistical comparison is impossible. Their mention of the prevalence of abuse in the general population is for the purpose of establishing a reference point for readers who are not familiar with the abuse literature. In fact, the authors repeatedly state that there are numerous indications that their sample is not representative of the larger population of married, Orthodox women, and they deny that they have drawn any conclusions about the rate of sexual abuse in the Orthodox community:
A major limitation of this study is that it was not feasible to obtain a representative sample of observant Jewish women, since no sampling frame was available…. We do not, therefore, claim that this study group is representative of all Jewish women. On the contrary, the high level of education, even among the ultra Orthodox, suggests a sampling bias…. For all of these reasons, the estimates of prevalence of sexual abuse reported here are not the actual prevalence of sexual abuse among Orthodox Jewish women. (p. 1704).[4]
Three papers are cited in the AJP paper to establish a 25%-27% rate in the general population. A careful examination of these references further clarifies why no conclusions can be drawn from the AJP data regarding the rate in the Orthodox community, or comparisons with general population. The 25%-27% rate is based on data from surveys which used random sampling methods from groups which are representative of the general population, and measured the response rate (i.e., what percentage of potential subjects agreed to be interviewed).[5] By contrast, the AJP study made no efforts to measure the total number of women who saw the advertisement. Therefore, there is no way to estimate the response rate. For example, if 2,000 women saw this advertisement, her response rate would be 19%; if 10,000 women saw the advertisement, it would be only a 3.8% response rate. This is not a criticism of their study; it is simply a clarification of the kind of study this is. It is not an estimate of the rate of sexual abuse in the Orthodox community.

In addition, if these authors wished to draw conclusions about the rate of sexual abuse in the Orthodox community relative to the general population, they would need to consider the following: The rate of sexual abuse is about twice as high among subjects in their study who are ba'alei teshuva vs. subjects in their study who were raised Orthodox ("FFB women"). A plausible explanation for this curious finding (if the sample were representative, which it is not) is that there may be an actual lower rate of sexual abuse among FFB women vs. Jewish women raised among non-observant Jews.[6]

In conclusion, it should be clear to anyone who reads this paper carefully that there is no data presented which justifies a conclusion about the rate of sexual abuse in the Orthodox community, or a statistical comparison with the rate in the general population. The investigators have made this abundantly clear. The fact that this is not clear to Debra Nussbaum Cohen, or the editorial staff of the New York Jewish Week may be evidence of a lack of sophistication with academic papers. I would never expect, for example, that a science writer at the NY Times would misunderstand this so significantly. The NY Jewish Week article makes assertions that are disavowed numerous times in the AJP paper!

Part 2: My critique of the paper, and response to Dr. Marvin Schick.

One might ask, "If these data are from a sample which is not representative of observant, married Jewish women, then what is the point of this study?" Admittedly, this paper is more significant for fellow researchers about sexual abuse than for the lay public. Sometimes, good research suggests more questions than it can answer. This study would suggest that the following questions need to be investigated. Why did FFB women in this sample report abuse about half as frequently as ba'alei teshuva? Would a questionnaire given to a randomly selected sample of women raised Orthodox show lower rates than an age matched unobservant or non-Jewish cohort sample? If Orthodox women were randomly sampled from some institutional settings, would they answer differently according to their identity as Haredi or Modern? Are Modern Orthodox girls better educated about avoiding sexual abuse? Or, are Haredi communities particularly impervious to representative sampling for scientific surveys?[7]

I would fault the authors of this paper with only one thing: They fail to acknowledge the very plausible possibility that a lower rate of abuse in Orthodox communities would explain the difference they observed between FFB women and ba'alei teshuva. Instead, they offer the following speculation, "Thus, women who are sexually abused or threatened may be more likely to seek out a more structured and sexually restricted lifestyle." (p. 1704) In fairness to the authors, etiquette in scientific papers is that wide latitude is typically granted to authors to speculate about their findings in the Discussion. Actual statistics, conclusions based on actual statistics, and conclusions which are reported in a paper's Abstract are reviewed at a much higher level of scrutiny than the Discussion. Those familiar with reading the scientific literature realize this, and in my opinion it is not the fault of the authors that their paper was so greatly mischaracterized by the New York Jewish Week.[8] Nevertheless, the addition of one sentence might have averted significant misunderstandings.

I would like to respond to Dr. Marvin Schick's lengthy remarks.[9] He characterizes the AJP paper as "the reckless scholarship and statistics of Dr. Yehuda, et al which constitute a form of group libel and severe cruelty toward observant Jews." He makes numerous arguments against the validity of their data set. For example, he complains that the sample is too small to draw conclusions. In reality, smaller data sets increase the risk of Type II Errors (false negatives, i.e. failure to identify a legitimate finding), but not Type I Errors (false positives). Furthermore, if this were a representative sample (which it is not), then this sample size would be perfectly adequate for estimates. Schick states, "The greatest flaw in the research and presentation is that 137 or 36% of the respondents were not raised Orthodox, becoming observant later in life, a statistic that is incompatible with the distribution of ba'alei teshuva or return to Judaism women in the Orthodox population." To the contrary, the discrepancy between ba'alei teshuva and FFB women who were recruited via the same sampling methodology is one of the most interesting findings in this data set and worthy of future research. Despite dismissing the sample as unrepresentative, Schick concludes, "Contrary to popular wisdom which decrees confidently that the Orthodox tend not to report abuse, 44% of those raised Orthodox reported the incident. The comparable figure for those not raised Orthodox is 39%." He also states, "In sum, to the degree that this survey has any value, it appears to point to a lower, probably much lower, incidence of sexual abuse in the Orthodox community than in American society as a whole." It puzzles me that while he so eloquently estlablishes that the data are not representative, he is nevertheless willing to tentatively draw selective conclusions from it.

The most problematic aspect of Schick's remarks is that he appears to imply that it is he who has discovered that the data are not representative of the general population. (I do not assume he has done this deliberately.) For example, he cites the high graduate education rate (53%) amongst the ultra-Orthodox respondents, as well as the high proportion of subjects who have been treated with psychotherapy in the past (51%). Yet, he omits the fact that it is the authors of the AJP paper themselves who state that these particular findings indicate that their sample is not representative (p. 1704):

We do not, therefore, claim that this study is representative of all observant Jewish women. On the contrary, the high level of education, even among the ultra-Orthodox, suggests a sampling bias that may be associated with a willingness to participate in research. Furthermore, there was a high proportion of subjects receiving mental health treatment in this group, which also may reflect an openness to discussing sensitive topics with others.
In summary, Schick unfairly portrays the AJP authors as though they have drawn conclusions about the rate of abuse in the Orthodox community and a comparison with the general population (which they have not), and inaccurately portrays himself (presumably inadvertently) as though he has discovered findings which indicate their data are not representative.

The authors of this study, Rachel Yehuda PhD, Michelle Friedman MD, Tali Rosenbaum PT, Ellen Labinsky PhD, and James Schmeidler PhD, have been subject to very unfair and inappropriate criticism from the Orthodox community.[10] There is much to learn about sexual abuse in general population as well as in the Orthodox community. Their paper does suggest that religious identity and religious upbringing may exert effects on the prevalence of sexual abuse. That alone is a worthwhile contribution. Determining exactly what these effects are will require further research.

Part 3: My recommendations as to what Orthodox Jews can and cannot conclude from this paper.

Jewish Law imposes strong prohibitions against any premarital or extramarital sexual contact. The Jewish religious tradition emphasizes the cultivation of high personal and communal standards of modesty in all interpersonal relationships. It is, therefore, quite reasonable that Orthodox Jews should expect that there would be a significantly lower rate of sexual offenders brought up in an Orthodox environment. One might hope the same for violence, theft, tax-fraud, gossip, anger, and arrogance. The AJP paper does not present any evidence that there is a lower, comparable, or higher rate of sexual abuse in the Orthodox community as compared with the general population, and we must acknowledge that there is no scientific evidence to support an assumption that sexual abuse, or any other social evil, is less frequent in our communities. Being raised in a Torah environment is not a guarantee that someone will grow up to become an ethical, balanced, humble, and refined human being. How certain are we, for example, that arrogance and anger, despite admonitions against them by Chazal and in the mussar and Hassidic literature, are expressed less frequently or intensely among Orthodox Jews, as compared with unobservant Jews or the general population?

As far as the impact of Orthodox Jewish life on the rate of sexual abuse in a given community, I would suggest the following: It would be more relevant to investigate the percentage of sexual offenders in a given population, as opposed to prevalence of victims of sexual abuse. By way of analogy: Locks and burglar alarms probably reduce the incidence of theft, but not the prevalence of thieves. Prevention of sexual abuse is best achieved by implementing safety measures, and by enforcing the law. In other words, we wish to prevent potential sexual offenders from becoming actual sexual offenders, and to prevent one-time offenders from becoming serial offenders. Preventing the development of pedophilia is another matter.

I would also suggest that we must consider the following: Although this is highly controversial and although there is not yet a consensus in the scientific literature, there is an emerging body of evidence to suggest that pedophilia may be a manifestation of biological problems in the brain.[11] I do not argue for leniency toward sexual offenders, regardless of the question of a biological disposition toward pedophilia. However, this consideration does suggest important theoretical questions about the degree to which a religious upbringing can be expected to prevent or reduce manifestations of biological abnormalities.

What should the Orthodox community conclude from this study? I would suggest only the following: We cannot rely upon lay Jewish media to accurately report on scientific developments, particularly those which are juicy and controversial. Sensationalizing scientific findings for the sake of noble causes (like protecting our children from sexual abuse) tends in the long run to undermine rather than bolster them. This study provides no conclusive information about the rate of sexual abuse in our communities, and should not factor into Jewish communal policy decisions.

In my opinion, there is currently a positive trend toward increased collaboration between lay leaders, rabbinic leaders, mental health professionals, and law enforcement agencies for how to prevent sexual abuse in our communities. The rights of the accused, the vulnerability of young children, and the charged nature of highly emotional reactions by most individuals in response to allegations of sexual abuse pose irresolvable dilemmas for those trying to formulate consistent policies. From my perspective as a psychiatrist and psychoanalyst, I believe that there is still not enough being done in Orthodox communities to prevent sexual abuse of children. The areas which I believe would be the most productive are preventive education for parents and children, and mandatory criminal background checks for all employees of day schools, seminaries, yeshivas, and summer camps. My perspective is informed by the following: (1) an understanding of the devastating consequences of childhood sexual abuse which comes from in-depth psychotherapy treatment of numerous patients who continue to struggle with the consequences of it during adulthood, (2) being privy to numerous incidents of sexual abuse in Orthodox communities across North America which have been horribly mishandled when mental health professionals and law enforcement were not involved, and (3) seeing numerous incidents of sexual abuse in Orthodox communities where involvement of the legal authorities and mental health professionals was enormously helpful to victims and their families, as well as to institutions and communities as far as preventing further incidents of abuse.



[1] It is clear to me that one must report allegations of child abuse (sexual or physical) when one is aware of it, (even if this means that the child might be places in a Gentile foster home). Rabbi Abraham Sofer Abraham, Nishmat Avraham Volume 4, pages 307-11, quotes responsa from Rabbis Auerbach, Elyashiv and Waldenberg in agreement on this point, that one must report cases of child abuse. No alternative view is quoted in this enclyopedic work. Rabbi Abraham writes:
A child or infant who is brought to a hospital with symptoms of being a battered child... it is prohibited, after an investigation, to return him to his home as they will continue to beat him until he might die. Because of the real danger, it is obligatory for the doctor to inform the courts, and with an order from the court, place the child with a foster parent or agency. There is no problem of informing since we are dealing with danger to life and the parents are the pursuers. This is permitted even if they will place the child, due to no choice, with a family or agency that is secular. It is incumbent upon the Jewish court to do everything in its power to insure that the child is placed with an observant family or agency. Particularly in the diaspora it is important that the Jewish court work to insure that the child not be placed with a Gentile family or agency. Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Auerbach agreed with all of the above.

Rabbi Yosef Shalom Elyashiv recounted to me that it is permitted for the doctor to inform the authorities even if it is possible that the child will be placed with a family or agency that is not Jewish...

Rabbi Waldenberg wrote "if there is a real risk that the parents will continue to hit the child... it is obligatory for the doctor to report the matter to the police..." Sexual abuse (of either boys or girls) is no different than physical abuse. [Rabbis Waldenberg, Elyashiv and Auerbach agree that reporting is mandatory also.] Rabbi Elyashiv writes "there is no difference between boys and girls since one is dealing with a seriously life wounding event (pegiah nafshit) and a danger to the public... this is much more serious than theft and one certainly must report this matter to the school administration and if nothing is done, even to the police even in the Diaspora."
For more on this, see http://www.jlaw.com/Articles/mesiralaw2.html

[2] Avi Shafran (http://www.cross-currents.com/archives/2007/11/22/sin-and-subtext/) which correctly points out that the New York Jewish Week article is inaccurate. Marvin Schick (http://mschick.blogspot.com/2007/12/scholarly-abuse.html) has attempted to discredit the AJP paper. A brief critique is also offered by David H. Rosmarin et al (http://www.jpsych.com/abuse.html) which is similar in content to Schick's.

[3] A brief word about my qualifications to analyze this paper: As the Director of Psychotherapy Training in the Psychiatry Residency Training Program at the University of Cincinnati, one of my responsibilities is to help resident physicians learn how to read academic and scientific papers critically. The American Journal of Psychiatry is the most widely read academic journal by American general psychiatrists, and is widely read by clinicians as well as researchers. Its articles are not intended to require special expertise in statistics or neuroscience. Therefore, I submit that I am certainly qualified to critique this paper.

[4] In an exchange between Dr. Rachel Yehuda and myself on the list-serve for Nefesh International (an network of Orthodox Jewish mental health professionals), she has confirmed that I am correctly reading the intent of their paper. Dr. Yehuda states: "You [Klafter] are completely correct that our study does not permit conclusions regarding the exact rate of abuse in the Orthodox community. Given the nature of the sampling and -- more importantly -- the limited information we have about the sampling frame in general (i.e., demography of the Orthodox community) it is impossible for us to know the extent to which our sample is even representative of married, observant women. This is clearly stated in our paper. " (Nefesh International List-serve, January 1 2008, "Response to Dr. Klafter")

[5] The first source, Finkelhor, et al, reports data from a study conducted by a randomized phone survey. In other words, it is not comparable to the AJP data, which are from a self-selected group who chose to respond to a widely distributed advertisement. The second source, Vogeltanz, et al., reports data from a face to face interviews of women from two data sets with similar methodologies, one done in 1981 the other in 1991. The response rates were 92% and 91% respectively. As I discuss below, the response rates for the study by Dr. Yehuda et al. are unknown, but should be presumed to be much, much lower because it is a self-selected, non-randomized sample. The third source is a 1993 monograph by the National Research Council, "Understanding Child Abuse and Neglect." The full text of this valuable resource is available online: http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=2117&page= Refer to pp. 78-105, "Scope of the Problem" where you will see that the studies cited do not resemble the study by Yehuda R, et al., because its samples are representative, randomized, and have known response rates.

[6] I would like to clarify, however, that I object to drawing any conclusions about the relative rate of sexual abuse among FFB women vs. ba'alei teshuva (i.e., that there is a lower prevalence of sexual abuse in the Orthodox community); as I have stated, this sample is not representative.

[7] I have been told by researchers that, in Israel, survey data from Haredi populations is widely suspected as being influenced by a strong cultural bias against participation in scientific research.

[8] Rabbi Avi Shafran (http://www.cross-currents.com/archives/2007/11/22/sin-and-subtext/) appropriately limits his criticism to the New York Jewish Week. He has correctly read the AJP paper, and understands that no conclusions were made about the rate of abuse in the Orthodox community.

[9] http://mschick.blogspot.com/2007/12/scholarly-abuse.html

[10] The response by David H. Rosmarin et al (http://www.jpsych.com/abuse.html) is also flawed. A couple of examples: This critique also incorrectly attributes conclusions to the AJP authors which they have not made regarding the prevalence of abuse in Haredi communities vs. Orthodox communities. Then, in order to refute this imaginary claim by Yehuda et al, Rosmarin et al offer the following convoluted suggestion: "If abused Ultra-Orthodox women were less likely to drop their affiliation with Orthodoxy than Modern-Orthodox women, perhaps because of a tighter communal structure among the Ultra-Orthodox and a resulting increase in emotional support for victims of abuse, then there is not necessarily any connection between the study's reported rates of abuse and the actual rates." I should not need to mention that since the samples are not representative (which Rosmarin et al argue), all such speculation is meaningless. Furthermore, in order to adduce evidence that the AJP sample (which contained a 53% rate of prior mental health treatments) is not representative Rosmarin et al state: "The general reluctance of Orthodox Jews to seek out psychological and/or psychiatric services is well-established." To justify this completely unsubstantiated claim, they quote Margolese (Am Jour Psychotherapy, 52:1, 37-53): "Prior to engaging in therapy, an Orthodox Jew may view psychotherapy with ambivalence at best and as heretical at worst." A review of the cross cultural literature on attitudes toward psychotherapy in any other ethnic and religious group will reveal similar things about stigma and resistance to treatment. Furthermore, Margolese's paper makes no effort to measure the rate of mental health treatment in the Orthodox community, rendering this entire argument and citation meaningless, not to mention that Dr. Yehuda et al have clearly acknowledged that this finding indicates their sample is not representative.

[11] For a sample of recent papers on this controversial and complex topic, see: Cantor JM, et al. Cerebral white matter deficiencies in pedophilic men. J Psychiatry Res. 2008 Feb,42(3):167-83; Schiltz K, et al. Brain pathology in pedophilic offenders: evidence of volume reduction in the right amygdala and related diencephalic structures. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2007 Jun, 64(6):737-46; Joyal CC, et al. The neuropsychology and neurology of sexual deviance: a review and pilot study. Sex Abuse 2007 Jun 19(2):155-73; Cantor JM, et al. Grade failure and special education placement in sexual offenders' educational histories. Arch Sex Behav. 2006 35(6):743-51; Tost H, et al. Pedophilia: neuropsychological evidence encouraging a brain network perspective. Med Hypotheses 2004,63(3):528-31.


Dr. Nachum Klafter was born and raised in upstate New York, where he attended college and medical school. He also studied in Jerusalem at the Hebrew University and Yeshivat Darchei Noam. Dr. Klafter completed his residency training in psychiatry at the Thomas Jefferson University Hospital in Philadelphia, where he also served as Chief Resident. Dr. Klafter was recruited by the University of Cincinnati in 2000, where he continues to teach psychodynamic psychotherapy. He completed his training as a psychoanalyst at the Cincinnati Psychoanalytic Institute in 2011. Dr. Klafter maintains a private practice in psychiatry, psychoanalysis, and psychotherapy supervision. He serves on the teaching faculty of the Cincinnati Psychoanalytic Institute, which offers advanced training in psychotherapy and psychoanalysis for licensed mental health professionals. He writes a monthly essay for the list-serve of the Nefesh International organization, and and serves as a board member. He has delivered psychotherapy trainings for professional organizations regionally, nationally, and overseas. He has authored papers and book chapters on terrorism, the impact of sexual abuse, boundaries and boundary violations in psychotherapy, greed, fear of success, trust and mistrust in the clinical setting, and the various aspects of the interface between psychotherapy and Judaism. In his personal life, Dr. Klafter is an accomplished musician and photographer, and has given a regular shiur in his community in Choshen Mishpat for the last 10 years. He resides in Cincinnati with his wife and four daughters. 

 

Friday, February 16, 2018

Fifty one percent of the respondents reported receiving mental health treatment during their lifetime. The specific conditions for which respondents sought treatment were depression (22%), anxiety disorders (17%), eating disorders (4%), marital problems (21%), and other emotional or psychological problems (14%). ...


Objective: The authors examined instances of past sexual abuse and related demographic characteristics in the self-reports of a select group of married observant Jewish women.

 Methods: Orthodox Jewish married women (N=380) ages 19 to 58 responded to advertisements asking them to complete an anonymous questionnaire about sexual experiences, including sexual abuse.

 Results: Sexual abuse was reported by 26% of the respondents surveyed, with 16% reporting abuse occurring by the age of 13. More ultra-Orthodox Jews reported abuse than modern-Orthodox Jews. Women who were raised observant reported significantly less childhood sexual abuse than those who became observant later in life. Sexual abuse was associated with increased treatment-seeking for depression, marital counseling, or other emotional or psychological problems.  

Conclusion: While observant Jewish women live in a culture defined by a high degree of adherence to specific laws of conduct, including rules designed to regulate sexual contact, sexual abuse of various types still exists among them.

Most studies investigating religiosity and sexual abuse have examined whether religiosity ameliorates the negative consequences of sexual trauma (14) , rather than whether religiosity affects the occurrence of sexual trauma. There are currently no statistics regarding the lifetime prevalence of sexual abuse within religious communities. Accordingly, it is not possible to know whether cultures that constrain sexual activity protect individuals from sexual abuse, increase occurrence of such abuse, or have no effect at all. In Orthodox Judaism, there are major constraints on sexual behavior compared with U.S. cultural norms, including a strict prohibition of premarital and extramarital physical contact of any sort (5) . We examined the lifetime prevalence of sexual abuse in a group of self-reporting married Orthodox Jewish women. Data on abuse were collected as part of a larger study investigating sexual behavior and dysfunction. Because the subjects were recruited by advertisements, they were more self-selecting than subjects in a sampling frame-based survey. Thus, those who chose to participate may not be representative of the population.


Participants were categorized as either modern-Orthodox or ultra-Orthodox based on their self-reported religious affiliation. This subdivision reflects a debate within the Orthodox Jewish community. Unlike modern-Orthodox Jews, who actively participate in the general culture, haredi Jews, or ultra-Orthodox Jews, embrace a theologically conservative outlook that advocates substantial separation from secular culture ( haredi literally means “one who trembles before God”) (6) .

 This issue of openness versus insularity provided an additional basis for comparison within the 
Respondents were Jewish married women (N=380) ages 19 to 58. To be included in the study, the participant had to report regular use of a ritual bath (i.e., Mikvah), reflecting adherence to Orthodox Jewish law, which proscribes sexual contact during menstruation and for seven days thereafter (7) . Subjects responded to a flier or advertisement asking married women to consider participating in an important research study conducted by the Mt. Sinai School of Medicine examining sexual life in marriage among observant Jewish women. The advertisements emphasized that the goal of the study was to gain a better understanding of sexual attitudes and practices, and that the study investigators believed that such knowledge could inform premarital education (Kallah) classes, as well as be useful for medical, mental health, and rabbinic professionals who treat and counsel observant Jewish women.



Design
This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of the Mt. Sinai School of Medicine. 

Participants completed the questionnaire anonymously and without financial reward and returned it by postal or electronic mail. To obtain a diverse group of observant Jewish women, subjects were sought across a large range of religious Jewish communities by advertising through synagogue bulletins, Jewish organizations, newspapers, Jewish-oriented web sites and Listservs, and a network of medical professionals (e.g., obstetricians/gynecologists, nurses, and pediatricians) whose practices consisted of sizable numbers of Orthodox Jewish women. The design of this study did not allow us to estimate the number or characteristics of women who heard about the study and refused participation.



Questionnaire
The questionnaire developed for the participants was comparable to that used in the National Health and Social Life Survey (8 , 9) , administered by the Sociometrics Corporation, with additional questions regarding religious affiliation and other specific questions related to sexual life within Orthodox Jewish communities. These additional questions were based on questions described comprehensively in documents available from the Sociometrics Corporation. This section of the questionnaire began by asking respondents the question “Did anyone ever touch you sexually in a way that made you feel uncomfortable?” and, if so, requesting a brief account of the incident. We excluded responses where the account itself concluded that abuse had not occurred, such as 1) when the situation was consensual, although uncomfortable (e.g., “Past boyfriends sometimes pushed too much. I do not consider it abuse, so maybe my original answer should be changed to no”), 2) when the account was of a nonconsensual but inconsequential event (e.g., “My father’s friend wanted to have sex with me,” or “A stranger fondled my backside on the street”), or 3) when the respondent did not describe the event in the follow-up questions used in the analyses (e.g., characteristics of the perpetrator[s], number of times abused, age of respondent and perpetrator at the time of abuse, and whether the abuse involved forced touching of genitals and/or penetration).

The National Health and Social Life Survey used examiners to ask further details about each experience; in this study, the questionnaire asked for personal relevant details.

Statistical Analysis
Chi-square tests were used to compare sociodemographic characteristics of the participants based on religious affiliation (modern- versus ultra-Orthodox) and whether the respondent was raised observant or became observant later in life.

Three dichotomous variables relating to sexual abuse were also considered: presence or absence of a history of sexual abuse, whether genital contact occurred in the abuse, and age at time of first abuse (“13 and below” versus “other”). We also examined characteristics of the abuse itself and its disclosure. Sexual behavior within the marriage was noted but not assessed for possible abuse.

Table 1 shows the demographic characteristics of the respondents, as well as subgroup comparisons between modern- and ultra-Orthodox Jewish women and between women who were raised observant and those who became observant later in life. There were no significant differences between modern- and ultra-Orthodox respondents in age, birthplace, income, or prior marriages. However, compared with modern-Orthodox women, ultra-Orthodox women were more likely to have ended their education with high school or 1 year of religious seminary and were less likely to pursue graduate education, although the percentage of those with graduate education was higher among ultra-Orthodox women who were not raised observant.



The proportion of women who reported being raised observant did not differ between modern- (63%) and ultra-Orthodox (65%) women (χ 2 =0.186, df=1, p=0.66). There were no differences in birthplace or income between respondents who were raised observant and who became observant later in life.

However, there was a significant effect of age, as a greater proportion of younger participants were raised observant, and a greater proportion of participants between the ages of 35 and 49 reported becoming observant. Women who became observant were also significantly older at the time of marriage and had more often been married before.

Twenty six percent of respondents reported experiencing at least one instance of sexual abuse. There was significantly greater reporting of sexual abuse by ultra-Orthodox women compared with modern-Orthodox women (χ 2 =5.88, df=1, p=0.015). The comparison was repeated and the women reporting abuse were subdivided into two groups: those abused by the age of 13 and those abused after this age.

More ultra-Orthodox women than modern-Orthodox women reported their first abuse at or before the age of 13 (χ 2 =7.37, df=2, p=0.025). Report of sexual abuse was nearly twice as high among Jewish women who became observant compared with those raised observant (χ 2 =6.98, df=1, p=0.008). More incidents of abuse were reported by ultra-Orthodox women than modern-Orthodox women, both for those raised observant (χ 2 =4.06, df=1, p=0.04) and for those who became observant and for whom the abuse preceded increased religiosity (χ 2 =4.23, df=1, p=0.04) ( Figure 1 ).

 As seen in Figure 1 , religious affiliation and being raised observant were not related. When controlling for whether or not the subject was raised observant, stepwise logistic regression showed a higher proportion of sexual abuse for ultra-Orthodox women than modern-Orthodox women (χ 2 = 7.79, df=1, p=0.005), and a higher proportion of abuse for those participants who became observant later in life, whether affiliated with ultra- or modern-Orthodox Judaism (χ 2 =12.59, df=1, p<0 .0005="" nbsp="" p="">
<0 .0005="" nbsp="" p="">

figure

Figure 1. Prevalence of Sexual Abuse According to Religious Affiliation and Upbringing
Table 2 shows the characteristics of the sexual abuse for the respondents who reported being abused. Among those who reported sexual abuse, half reported a single incident of abuse and half reported multiple incidents. Regarding the nature of the abuse, 48% reported genital contact/penetration, whereas 52% reported incidents of molestation (e.g., inappropriate fondling of the breasts and buttocks or attempted rape, which the respondent reported successfully fleeing). For 23% of sexually abused women, the abuse was perpetrated by a stranger. For 40%, the abuse was perpetrated by someone known to the respondent but not a family member, and for 30%, the abuse was perpetrated by a relative. Only 35% of respondents disclosed the abuse to another person, with 13% disclosing the event to their mother and 6% to their father. When the respondents were subdivided on the basis of whether they were raised observant, those raised observant were more likely to have been abused by strangers and were more likely to report incidents involving genital contact/penetration than those who become observant later in life.


Table
Table

Fifty one percent of the respondents reported receiving mental health treatment during their lifetime. The specific conditions for which respondents sought treatment were depression (22%), anxiety disorders (17%), eating disorders (4%), marital problems (21%), and other emotional or psychological problems (14%). Analyses based on religious affiliation and upbringing did not yield significant results, with the exception that persons who became observant sought more treatment for other emotional or psychological problems. Table 3 shows that respondents who reported sexual abuse were more likely to report seeking mental health treatment than those who did not report abuse, with significant differences for depression, marital problems, and emotional or psychological problems in general. Whether or not the abuse involved genital contact did not differ between those who did and did not report mental health treatment. 


Table
Table
While observant Jewish women live in a culture with a clearly prescribed set of laws designed to regulate sexual contact, sexual abuse still exists in these communities. Indeed, 26% of the participants in this study reported lifetime sexual abuse, with 16% reporting abuse occurring by the age of 13.

Almost a third of the participants reported sexual abuse perpetrated by relatives, and less than a quarter reported sexual abuse perpetrated by strangers. These estimates are consistent with data from several national surveys, in which 25%–27% of women, regardless of marital status or religious affiliation, reported sexual abuse (1012) . A meta-analytic study by Gorey and Leslie concluded that approximately 22% of women report childhood sexual abuse, a figure slightly higher than was noted in the present study, with about one-third reporting genital penetration (13) . Additionally, more ultra-Orthodox women reported sexual abuse than modern-Orthodox women. 

Although health professionals may be reluctant to inquire about sexual abuse in order not to offend patients for whom such topics are considered improper, it may be particularly important to screen for sexual abuse, since only one-third of the participants in this study reported disclosing the abuse to someone else. However, while the possibility of past abuse should be probed, it is also critically important to understand that the threshold at which someone may feel the victim of sexual abuse may be lower for those living in a more restrictive religious community. Approximately half of the reported incidents of abuse in this study did not involve genital contact. Since many researchers have historically defined sexual abuse as genital contact or even penetration (14) , there might be a tendency to minimize the significance of reported experiences that do not involve genital penetration.

Recent observations—which found that the effect of sexual trauma may depend less on the characteristics of the abuse itself and more on factors such as the relationship of the victim to the perpetrator and the family and community environment within which the abuse occurs—support the use of less restrictive criteria, particularly if the goal of such studies is to determine the impact and health consequences of sexual abuse (15 , 16) . Indeed, for the respondents in this study, a history of abuse was related to a greater prevalence of mental health treatment, including treatment for depression, marital problems, and some other emotional and psychological problems, consistent with reports (17 , 18) . There were no differences in seeking mental health treatment between sexually abused women who did and did not report abuse involving genital contact.

The higher proportion of reported abuse among women who became observant versus those raised observant is also significant. For Jewish women, the decision to become observant of the dictates of Orthodox Judaism involves a comprehensive change in lifestyle, which almost always includes a manifest restriction in sexual behavior. Furthermore, those who choose to affiliate with ultra-Orthodox Judaism undertake an additional isolation from the surrounding culture (6) . While the decision to increase religious observance may be motivated by many factors, it is noteworthy that of the respondents who became observant later in life and were not sexually abused, 60% were affiliated with modern-Orthodox Judaism, while among those who were sexually abused, only 43% were. Thus, women who are sexually abused or threatened may be more likely to seek out a more structured and sexually restricted lifestyle.

A major limitation of this study is that it was not feasible to obtain a representative sample of observant Jewish women, since no sampling frame was available. It was also not feasible to limit a representative sample of the general population to just observant Jewish women. This study used a wide variety of recruitment methods to provide coverage of the target population, which was married Jewish women who observe the strict laws associated with Orthodox Judaism, namely proscribed sexual activity except within marriage. We do not, therefore, claim that this study group is representative of all observant Jewish women. On the contrary, the high level of education, even among the ultra-Orthodox, suggests a sampling bias that may be associated with a willingness to participate in research. Furthermore, there was a high proportion of subjects receiving mental health treatment in this group, which may also reflect an openness to discussing sensitive topics with others.

Despite these potential sampling biases, the respondents were unquestionably from a population that is substantially different from normative Western secular culture. To obtain a more complete picture of the role of sexual abuse in the Orthodox Jewish community, it would be necessary to also examine sexual abuse among unmarried observant women, since a history of sexual abuse is known to affect the capacity for intimacy or trust in close relationships (1416) . Similarly, since more than half of Jews who were raised Orthodox no longer affiliate with Orthodox Judaism as adults (19) , it would be necessary to examine the lifetime prevalence of sexual abuse in Jewish women who were once observant but are no longer so. For all of these reasons, the estimates of prevalence of sexual abuse reported here are not the actual prevalence of sexual abuse among Orthodox Jewish women.

Despite these limitations, we are not aware of any other study examining sexual abuse in the Orthodox Jewish community or in any other similarly insular religious society. This may be due to laws governing modesty, which discourage public or even private discussions of sexuality (5) . We have received numerous comments on the survey from respondents expressing gratitude for this forum and suggesting support for further discussion in this area (Participant Perspective).

Received Dec. 3, 2006; revisions received March 7 and May 7, 2007; accepted June 7, 2007 (doi: 10.1176/appi.ajp.2007.06122030). From the Division of Traumatic Stress Studies, Department of Psychiatry, Mt. Sinai School of Medicine, New York; and the James J. Peters VA Medical Center
.
Address correspondence and reprint requests to Dr. Yehuda, Psychiatry OOMH, James J. Peters VA Medical Center, 130 West Kingsbridge Rd., Bronx, NY 10468; rachel.yehuda@va.gov (e-mail).
The authors report no competing interests.

The authors thank Sharon Jedel, Psy.D., who assisted in the literature review, and Janine Flory, Ph.D., and Claude Chemtob, Ph.D., for their assistance with this manuscript.

https://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/doi/full/10.1176/appi.ajp.2007.06122030