|
Post by curlywurlysammagee on Jun 27, 2014 2:42:12 GMT -5
In the US, anyway, there is no such thing as legal polygamy. The local such family has only 1 legal wife and 3 other wives of "spiritual" marriage. Any prenuptial contract between the man and any one of the wives could be honored in a court of law. Without such a prenuptial agreement a "spiritually" wife would have no standing to sue for anything if she left. The benefit to the legal wife, at least in a community property state like we are, is that if she divorced the man she would be entitled to 50% of all their combined assets. That would leave him and the other three with half what the legal wife got to take with her. What I don't understand is why people get so upset about polygamy anyway. If only one wife is legal, then what's all the fuss about? It's not like the other wives don't know the score. The original polygamist Mormon church leaders took wives that were old and had no one to care for them. The women had a roof over their head and food to eat. Yes, I know all the problems that arose with forced marriages to young girls. CSA is CSA and that is not what I am talking about here. Lots of couples live together without the benefit of marriage. If it makes them feel better by calling themselves spiritual wives or wife number 2, 3, 4 or whatever, so be it. I used to get upset about the whole arrangement saying that in some cases, John Q Public was supporting the spiritual wives and their children, but a lot of other couples don't get married in order to collect welfare benefits. Of course they get upset, well the poor bloke should, not only does he get nagged, he gets nagged times X, and then there's the mothers in law problem.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jun 27, 2014 13:37:52 GMT -5
I think what Rational is trying to say is that there are different degrees of abuse and not all of them leave lasting issues. I agree this is probably true. I am not sure why he feels that treatment can make it worse, but I'll give it a shot. I would imagine that if someone that was abused by societies standards, didn't feel they were abused, that maybe the whole incident could be made worse if they were made to think there was something wrong with what happened. I suppose it could lead them to think maybe their was something wrong with them because they were not reacting in the 'standard' way, whatever that might be. That may lead to guilt I suppose. However, if the person that has been abused, knows it is wrong and has any reaction to it in a negative way, I don't think treatment will make them worse. In the studies that were discussed earlier, this point was made. Some of the victims did not even think about coming forward because they did not consider what happened to them to be abuse. Many young children do not consider inappropriate touching to be abuse. At best they are confused. Sometimes even gratified that someone is paying attention to them. Then when someone tells them it was not their fault they have that to consider. Now they can dwell on that and try to reassure themselves that it indeed was not something that they did - a point they may not have considered. Or, even worse, they could go an talk to someone who could 'recover' memories about the terrible things that they now believed actually happened.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jun 27, 2014 14:04:38 GMT -5
Am I to assume that you believe the long term damage is the same regardless of the type of abuse? Absolutely not! Do you really believe there is no difference between someone exposing themselves to a 4 year old on a play ground as compared to raping a 4 year old just because they are both called child sexual abuse? Absolutely not! From this I believe you can determine why I asked the question.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jun 27, 2014 17:03:57 GMT -5
I think what Rational is trying to say is that there are different degrees of abuse and not all of them leave lasting issues. I agree this is probably true. I am not sure why he feels that treatment can make it worse, but I'll give it a shot. I would imagine that if someone that was abused by societies standards, didn't feel they were abused, that maybe the whole incident could be made worse if they were made to think there was something wrong with what happened. I suppose it could lead them to think maybe their was something wrong with them because they were not reacting in the 'standard' way, whatever that might be. That may lead to guilt I suppose. However, if the person that has been abused, knows it is wrong and has any reaction to it in a negative way, I don't think treatment will make them worse. In the studies that were discussed earlier, this point was made. Some of the victims did not even think about coming forward because they did not consider what happened to them to be abuse. Many young children do not consider inappropriate touching to be abuse. At best they are confused. Sometimes even gratified that someone is paying attention to them. Then when someone tells them it was not their fault they have that to consider. Now they can dwell on that and try to reassure themselves that it indeed was not something that they did - a point they may not have considered. Or, even worse, they could go an talk to someone who could 'recover' memories about the terrible things that they now believed actually happened. Do you agree that we should try to defend children from the sexual advances of older people?
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jun 27, 2014 22:19:42 GMT -5
I think what Rational is trying to say is that there are different degrees of abuse and not all of them leave lasting issues. I agree this is probably true. I am not sure why he feels that treatment can make it worse, but I'll give it a shot. I would imagine that if someone that was abused by societies standards, didn't feel they were abused, that maybe the whole incident could be made worse if they were made to think there was something wrong with what happened. I suppose it could lead them to think maybe their was something wrong with them because they were not reacting in the 'standard' way, whatever that might be. That may lead to guilt I suppose. However, if the person that has been abused, knows it is wrong and has any reaction to it in a negative way, I don't think treatment will make them worse. In the studies that were discussed earlier, this point was made. Some of the victims did not even think about coming forward because they did not consider what happened to them to be abuse. Many young children do not consider inappropriate touching to be abuse. At best they are confused. Sometimes even gratified that someone is paying attention to them. Then when someone tells them it was not their fault they have that to consider. Now they can dwell on that and try to reassure themselves that it indeed was not something that they did - a point they may not have considered. Or, even worse, they could go an talk to someone who could 'recover' memories about the terrible things that they now believed actually happened. People in general do not have an adequate sense of what is abuse. We can't expect children to necessarily consider something abuse when a lot of the treatment they receive anyway they are taught is just the complications of having to be obedient to adults. People have to teach their children what is and what is not abuse, and model non-abusive behaviors themselves. When a 6 year old is not comfortable about sharing his uncomfortable experiences with his parents -- the parents have already made some errors of omission, if not commission also.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jun 27, 2014 22:25:03 GMT -5
In the studies that were discussed earlier, this point was made. Some of the victims did not even think about coming forward because they did not consider what happened to them to be abuse. Many young children do not consider inappropriate touching to be abuse. At best they are confused. Sometimes even gratified that someone is paying attention to them. Then when someone tells them it was not their fault they have that to consider. Now they can dwell on that and try to reassure themselves that it indeed was not something that they did - a point they may not have considered. Or, even worse, they could go an talk to someone who could 'recover' memories about the terrible things that they now believed actually happened. Do you agree that we should try to defend children from the sexual advances of older people? You're asking what? The man was explaining why the kids don't know it is abuse -- the suggestion being that someone, probably a parent, has not prepared the child against sexual advances against them.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jun 28, 2014 15:14:16 GMT -5
For that talk I was doubting the expertise of Paul Bebbington and his research methodology. That's your prerogative. The Royal College of Psychologists disagrees with you. The Royal College of Psychologists publishes peer reviewed research papers. They publish papers that are supported by research. More than a decade ago they were publishing papers that questioned, for example, the reliability of 'recovered' memories. In general, The Royal College of Psychologists agrees with papers published and supported with sound research. I have lived with people who have lost limbs because of Staphylococcus. Watching parts of their body having to be removed because of the infection was painful. Because this bacteria can be lethal in some cases does not mean it is always lethal. I have no doubt, however, that both you and I currently are harboring Staphylococcus. In your case, you have anecdotal evidence that leads you to believe that in at least one case CSA causes severe long term damage. How you can verify the cause and effect is still in question. I do not think anyone has doubted that child abuse can cause long term damage. Research supports that claim. It does not mean, nor does the data support the fact, that all child sexual abuse cases lead to long term problems.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jun 28, 2014 15:17:27 GMT -5
Do you agree that we should try to defend children from the sexual advances of older people? I do agree that we should protect children from harm. I do not agree that in the process we should turn them into paranoid fearful beings who go through life not trusting anyone.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jun 28, 2014 16:33:25 GMT -5
In your case, you have anecdotal evidence that leads you to believe that in at least one case CSA causes severe long term damage. How you can verify the cause and effect is still in question. I do not think anyone has doubted that child abuse can cause long term damage. Research supports that claim. It does not mean, nor does the data support the fact, that all child sexual abuse cases lead to long term problems. Why do you throw in the word anecdotal? I live with the consequences of child sexual abuse. I would never state that all child sexual abuse cases lead to long term problems. Why do you say that?
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jun 28, 2014 17:19:56 GMT -5
Absolutely not! Absolutely not! From this I believe you can determine why I asked the question. Exposing oneself in not CSA, even in law. It is public indecency. Neither is private nudity without intention to molest a child considered CSA. What kind of prurient environment have some people been raised in anyway?
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jun 28, 2014 19:35:15 GMT -5
In your case, you have anecdotal evidence that leads you to believe that in at least one case CSA causes severe long term damage. How you can verify the cause and effect is still in question. I do not think anyone has doubted that child abuse can cause long term damage. Research supports that claim. It does not mean, nor does the data support the fact, that all child sexual abuse cases lead to long term problems. Why do you throw in the word anecdotal? Anecdotal evidence refers to evidence supported by a small sample. The probability that because it is selected to support a particular claim it may be non-representative of typical cases. The veracity of the individual claim is not the question. It still does not make your experience a universal truth. Your statements about the consequences of child sexual abuse contained no qualifiers.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jun 28, 2014 23:06:39 GMT -5
Your statements about the consequences of child sexual abuse contained no qualifiers. It was Snow who made the statement to start with. Does abuse have lifelong consequences? Yes, I think so. She did use a qualifier: "I think so". You're entitled to think what you like.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jun 29, 2014 11:30:25 GMT -5
Your statements about the consequences of child sexual abuse contained no qualifiers. It was Snow who made the statement to start with. The statement in question is: I still maintain that child sexual abuse destroys lives and is an important factor in suicide and attempted suicide. Yes you are entitled to think what you wish. However I do not think there is a qualifier in your phrase or in snow's phrase. But perhaps you are using a different meaning. A qualifier is a word or phrase that precedes an adjective or adverb that modifies the quality signified by the modified word Some common qualifiers(in no particular order): quite, rather, somewhat, more, most, less, too, just, indeed, still, almost, fairly, really, pretty, even, a bit, enough, a little, a (whole) lot, very, a good deal, a great deal, least, so, kind of, sort of, etc. A qualified phrase might look like: I still maintain that some child sexual abuse destroys lives and is a somewhat important factor in some suicides and attempted suicides.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 29, 2014 14:07:52 GMT -5
It must be a slow news day to get picking this apart, but the statement is perfectly fine and easy to understand as is.
"I still maintain that child sexual abuse destroys lives "
.....does not state or imply that it destroys all lives nor that it completely destroys lives. It does destroy lives though and it would only take two anecdotal stories to make that statement correct.
"is an important factor in suicide and attempted suicide"
....obviously this statement doesn't refer to all suicides because the main subject of the sentence is about those whose lives have been destroyed by child sexual abuse. For those whose lives have been destroyed by child sexual abuse and attempt to commit suicide, the sexual abuse will undoubtedly be an important factor.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jun 29, 2014 19:25:13 GMT -5
It must be a slow news day to get picking this apart, but the statement is perfectly fine and easy to understand as is. "I still maintain that child sexual abuse destroys lives " .....does not state or imply that it destroys all lives nor that it completely destroys lives. It does destroy lives though and it would only take two anecdotal stories to make that statement correct. "is an important factor in suicide and attempted suicide" ....obviously this statement doesn't refer to all suicides because the main subject of the sentence is about those whose lives have been destroyed by child sexual abuse. For those whose lives have been destroyed by child sexual abuse and attempt to commit suicide, the sexual abuse will undoubtedly be an important factor. Of course it is correct. "Swimming pools destroy lives." is also a true statement. "Rope is an important factor in suicide and attempted suicide." is also true. Both provide information of dubious value.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jun 29, 2014 19:31:42 GMT -5
It must be a slow news day to get picking this apart, but the statement is perfectly fine and easy to understand as is. "I still maintain that child sexual abuse destroys lives " .....does not state or imply that it destroys all lives nor that it completely destroys lives. It does destroy lives though and it would only take two anecdotal stories to make that statement correct. "is an important factor in suicide and attempted suicide" ....obviously this statement doesn't refer to all suicides because the main subject of the sentence is about those whose lives have been destroyed by child sexual abuse. For those whose lives have been destroyed by child sexual abuse and attempt to commit suicide, the sexual abuse will undoubtedly be an important factor. Of course it is correct. "Swimming pools destroy lives." is also a true statement. "Rope is an important factor in suicide and attempted suicide." is also true. Both provide information of dubious value. People who care about issues can be agents for positive change in society.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jun 29, 2014 19:40:10 GMT -5
Of course it is correct. "Swimming pools destroy lives." is also a true statement. "Rope is an important factor in suicide and attempted suicide." is also true. Both provide information of dubious value. People who care about issues can be agents for positive change in society. People who act blindly about issues that they do not fully understand can do more harm than good.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 29, 2014 23:52:02 GMT -5
It must be a slow news day to get picking this apart, but the statement is perfectly fine and easy to understand as is. "I still maintain that child sexual abuse destroys lives " .....does not state or imply that it destroys all lives nor that it completely destroys lives. It does destroy lives though and it would only take two anecdotal stories to make that statement correct. "is an important factor in suicide and attempted suicide" ....obviously this statement doesn't refer to all suicides because the main subject of the sentence is about those whose lives have been destroyed by child sexual abuse. For those whose lives have been destroyed by child sexual abuse and attempt to commit suicide, the sexual abuse will undoubtedly be an important factor. Of course it is correct. "Swimming pools destroy lives." is also a true statement. "Rope is an important factor in suicide and attempted suicide." is also true. Both provide information of dubious value. Dubious argument. Swimming pools and rope are benign and do not proactively seek out children to destroy them. Child sexual predators actively seek out children to their own benefit with no regard to the well being of children. Of course, we are being educated on this site that children are not traumatized by child sexual abuse just as they are not traumatized by swimming pools or ropes, only confused. So the next logical conclusion is that children merely need to be educated that child sex with adults is harmless or beneficial to them and all will be well with them. No harm, no foul. At that point, we can legalize sex between children and adults. After all, child sexual abuse is much like swimming pool and ropes. All in favour, raise your hands.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jun 30, 2014 0:15:56 GMT -5
Of course it is correct. "Swimming pools destroy lives." is also a true statement. "Rope is an important factor in suicide and attempted suicide." is also true. Both provide information of dubious value. Dubious argument. Swimming pools and rope are benign and do not proactively seek out children to destroy them. Child sexual predators actively seek out children to their own benefit with no regard to the well being of children. Of course, we are being educated on this site that children are not traumatized by child sexual abuse just as they are not traumatized by swimming pools or ropes, only confused. So the next logical conclusion is that children merely need to be educated that child sex with adults is harmless or beneficial to them and all will be well with them. No harm, no foul. At that point, we can legalize sex between children and adults. After all, child sexual abuse is much like swimming pool and ropes. All in favour, raise your hands. Some folks on this site seem to be vindicating Bert's concerns.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2014 0:23:14 GMT -5
Dubious argument. Swimming pools and rope are benign and do not proactively seek out children to destroy them. Child sexual predators actively seek out children to their own benefit with no regard to the well being of children. Of course, we are being educated on this site that children are not traumatized by child sexual abuse just as they are not traumatized by swimming pools or ropes, only confused. So the next logical conclusion is that children merely need to be educated that child sex with adults is harmless or beneficial to them and all will be well with them. No harm, no foul. At that point, we can legalize sex between children and adults. After all, child sexual abuse is much like swimming pool and ropes. All in favour, raise your hands. Some folks on this site seem to be vindicating Bert's concerns. Bert's paranoia of the slippery slope is coming to life right here.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jun 30, 2014 1:22:58 GMT -5
Dubious argument. Swimming pools and rope are benign and do not proactively seek out children to destroy them. Child sexual predators actively seek out children to their own benefit with no regard to the well being of children. Of course, we are being educated on this site that children are not traumatized by child sexual abuse just as they are not traumatized by swimming pools or ropes, only confused. So the next logical conclusion is that children merely need to be educated that child sex with adults is harmless or beneficial to them and all will be well with them. No harm, no foul. At that point, we can legalize sex between children and adults. After all, child sexual abuse is much like swimming pool and ropes. All in favour, raise your hands. Some folks on this site seem to be vindicating Bert's concerns. Yes. I don't want him scaring my grand children.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jun 30, 2014 1:24:29 GMT -5
Of course it is correct. "Swimming pools destroy lives." is also a true statement. "Rope is an important factor in suicide and attempted suicide." is also true. Both provide information of dubious value. Dubious argument. Swimming pools and rope are benign and do not proactively seek out children to destroy them. Child sexual predators actively seek out children to their own benefit with no regard to the well being of children. Of course, we are being educated on this site that children are not traumatized by child sexual abuse just as they are not traumatized by swimming pools or ropes, only confused. So the next logical conclusion is that children merely need to be educated that child sex with adults is harmless or beneficial to them and all will be well with them. No harm, no foul. At that point, we can legalize sex between children and adults. After all, child sexual abuse is much like swimming pool and ropes. All in favour, raise your hands. SHREEEEEEEEKKKK
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jun 30, 2014 6:50:09 GMT -5
Of course it is correct. "Swimming pools destroy lives." is also a true statement. "Rope is an important factor in suicide and attempted suicide." is also true. Both provide information of dubious value. Dubious argument. Swimming pools and rope are benign and do not proactively seek out children to destroy them. Child sexual predators actively seek out children to their own benefit with no regard to the well being of children. There is a reason why things like swimming pools are considered attractive nuisances - they are likely to attract children and the owner needs to take affirmative action to protect children from that attraction. The same could be said of a rope hanging from a tree. This is apparently your own conclusion since it is unsupported by any research that has been presented.You are on your own on this one. This might be a logical progression based on your statement. The only similarity is that both "Swimming pools destroy lives." and "CSA destroys lives" are both true statements but provide little information of value. If you don't agree with the research presented by Clancy, Finklehor, and others simply point out the errors in their work rather than misrepresenting what they have published.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2014 7:20:50 GMT -5
Dubious argument. Swimming pools and rope are benign and do not proactively seek out children to destroy them. Child sexual predators actively seek out children to their own benefit with no regard to the well being of children. Of course, we are being educated on this site that children are not traumatized by child sexual abuse just as they are not traumatized by swimming pools or ropes, only confused. So the next logical conclusion is that children merely need to be educated that child sex with adults is harmless or beneficial to them and all will be well with them. No harm, no foul. At that point, we can legalize sex between children and adults. After all, child sexual abuse is much like swimming pool and ropes. All in favour, raise your hands. SHREEEEEEEEKKKKI feel the same way. After all, if swimming pools are legal for children (even though an occasional swimming pool will destroy a child), then why not legalize child/adult sex? It is becoming an established fact here apparently that adult/child sex merely confuses the child at worst and any evidence to the contrary is anecdotal and therefore invalid.
|
|
|
Post by Magic-8-Ball on Jun 30, 2014 7:28:50 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jun 30, 2014 7:58:08 GMT -5
It is becoming an established fact here apparently that adult/child sex merely confuses the child at worst. Perhaps if you could stop misrepresenting the information presented it would help. No matter how many times you repeat "...that adult/child sex merely confuses the child at worst." it is still not what anyone but you have claimed.
|
|
|
Post by jondough on Jun 30, 2014 8:05:28 GMT -5
Oh my goodness.....
Just about everything we say in Rationals mind needs a qualifier.
My grass is green.......er.....mostly green....there are a couple of brown blades.
Your mom is nice.....er......most of the time.
cars are used to transport people.......er......and animals, groceries, and many other things.
the sky is blue........er......appears to be blue, and only in the day when its clear outside.....
This train is fast......er.......only when its running.
That road is dangerous.........er........only for automobiles.
A child could drown in a pool......er.......only when there's water in it.
I'm just wondering if the guy constantly corrects people in normal conversation like this.......my goodness that could be irritating!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2014 8:11:53 GMT -5
It is becoming an established fact here apparently that adult/child sex merely confuses the child at worst. Perhaps if you could stop misrepresenting the information presented it would help. No matter how many times you repeat "...that adult/child sex merely confuses the child at worst." it is still not what anyone but you have claimed. No matter how many times you claim misrepresentation, it doesn't make anything right. Just state the facts correctly and clearly. Enlighten us all about the damages done to children who have experienced child/adult sex.
|
|