|
Post by rational on Jul 2, 2014 15:36:26 GMT -5
Pick your definitions and answer if you are so inclined. Surely this isn't complicated. If you are not inclined to answer, that's fine. No, it is not complicated at all if the terms are defined. For whatever reason you do not want to define the terms of the questions you are asking. I have already answered but I don't mind reposting it here. Two cases that are at different ends of the child abuse spectrum: In the opinion of researchers, as well as my experience, children who have suffered long term, repeated forceful child sexual abuse with physical contact involving vaginal/anal penetration at the hands of their father, or an alternative father figure, and are members of a dysfunctional family that offers little or no emotional support tend to present with the most damage. The term of the damage depends mostly on how soon they are removed from the environment and how soon the issue can be dealt with by supporting professionals and, even better, other non-involved family members. Long term damage to a 4 year old who witnesses an exhibitionist and is not a member of a family that becomes hysterical over the event - likely forgotten by the end of the week. Again, it depends more on the environment than the event. If nudity is a taboo subject and the child has been taught that nudity is wrong/forbidden/sinful then the sight of a nude adult will have a greater impact. Hard to imagine that the child would experience anything other than curiosity but it is possible that the family environment would cause the child to see this as a threat. Two cases with the abuse defined for both cases and my opinions regarding child sexual abuse and the possible damage from each. In the first case the victim was placed, completed high school, entered college and has gone on to receive a master's degree. The last time I had any contact with her she was planning her marriage and said she was "through with therapy forever", asked about other members of the staff, and said to say hello to them. Did she suffer from the abuse? Yes. Is it behind her? According to her it is. The toddler who had been 'flashed' in the park was in much better shape than his mother who only witnessed the event from afar. The woman, a short term patient, was discharged in less than a week. The toddler was - well, a toddler. The mother feared, for some reason, that the criminal would track them down. The 'flasher', as far as I know, was never caught.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jul 2, 2014 15:38:21 GMT -5
I think a compliant victim is more the case. The confusion is a result of attention and activity that is not necessarily unpleasant but is also not understood. Not many children, for example, are shocked by the sight of a person exposing themselves but may question why anyone would keep making themselves naked. They may even ask their parents who might react with much more emotion than the child expected or can understand. More confusion. But it still is considered child sexual abuse. But it's the confused child that doesn't tell on the abuser. They also know the consequences of their crime and they're smart enough to avoid the kids who have the wherewithal to tell on them when the deed is done. But I do agree with you in a way, to witness someone simply exposing himself I always found more hilarious than frightening. Aren't children taught to get naked to have a bath? What I really don't understand is a grown woman being traumatized by a person exposing himself. A good sense of humor can quickly remove the cause of any trauma in that kind of situation, I have found. It is a form of child sexual abuse and there are many who believe that any sexual child abuse causes damage. Not a lot of data to back that thought up.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jul 2, 2014 15:41:20 GMT -5
But it's the confused child that doesn't tell on the abuser. They also know the consequences of their crime and they're smart enough to avoid the kids who have the wherewithal to tell on them when the deed is done. But I do agree with you in a way, to witness someone simply exposing himself I always found more hilarious than frightening. Aren't children taught to get naked to have a bath? What I really don't understand is a grown woman being traumatized by a person exposing himself. A good sense of humor can quickly remove the cause of any trauma in that kind of situation, I have found. It is a form of child sexual abuse and there are many who believe that any sexual child abuse causes damage. Not a lot of data to back that thought up. I guess what I want to know is -- what is sexual about exposing oneself? Or am I misinterpreting something here?
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jul 2, 2014 16:11:20 GMT -5
It is a form of child sexual abuse and there are many who believe that any sexual child abuse causes damage. Not a lot of data to back that thought up. I guess what I want to know is -- what is sexual about exposing oneself? Or am I misinterpreting something here? Oh Bob! Some people seem to get sexual gratification from showing people their genitalia. And when you do that to a minor it is CSA.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jul 2, 2014 16:51:50 GMT -5
I guess what I want to know is -- what is sexual about exposing oneself? Or am I misinterpreting something here? Oh Bob! Some people seem to get sexual gratification from showing people their genitalia. And when you do that to a minor it is CSA. Oh - I never tried that. I won't ask any more questions.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 2, 2014 17:26:11 GMT -5
Pick your definitions and answer if you are so inclined. Surely this isn't complicated. If you are not inclined to answer, that's fine. No, it is not complicated at all if the terms are defined. For whatever reason you do not want to define the terms of the questions you are asking. I have already answered but I don't mind reposting it here. Two cases that are at different ends of the child abuse spectrum: In the opinion of researchers, as well as my experience, children who have suffered long term, repeated forceful child sexual abuse with physical contact involving vaginal/anal penetration at the hands of their father, or an alternative father figure, and are members of a dysfunctional family that offers little or no emotional support tend to present with the most damage. The term of the damage depends mostly on how soon they are removed from the environment and how soon the issue can be dealt with by supporting professionals and, even better, other non-involved family members. Long term damage to a 4 year old who witnesses an exhibitionist and is not a member of a family that becomes hysterical over the event - likely forgotten by the end of the week. Again, it depends more on the environment than the event. If nudity is a taboo subject and the child has been taught that nudity is wrong/forbidden/sinful then the sight of a nude adult will have a greater impact. Hard to imagine that the child would experience anything other than curiosity but it is possible that the family environment would cause the child to see this as a threat. Two cases with the abuse defined for both cases and my opinions regarding child sexual abuse and the possible damage from each. In the first case the victim was placed, completed high school, entered college and has gone on to receive a master's degree. The last time I had any contact with her she was planning her marriage and said she was "through with therapy forever", asked about other members of the staff, and said to say hello to them. Did she suffer from the abuse? Yes. Is it behind her? According to her it is. The toddler who had been 'flashed' in the park was in much better shape than his mother who only witnessed the event from afar. The woman, a short term patient, was discharged in less than a week. The toddler was - well, a toddler. The mother feared, for some reason, that the criminal would track them down. The 'flasher', as far as I know, was never caught. How did you ascertain that no harm was done by the flasher on the 4 year old? I'm thinking you might make your case of no harm if you changed the age of the child to one. I would be in agreement with that as a stellar example of a case exceptional to the rule of harm. Otherwise, writing off a four year old as just "well, a toddler" is presumptive.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jul 2, 2014 18:44:24 GMT -5
No, it is not complicated at all if the terms are defined. For whatever reason you do not want to define the terms of the questions you are asking. I have already answered but I don't mind reposting it here. Two cases that are at different ends of the child abuse spectrum: Two cases with the abuse defined for both cases and my opinions regarding child sexual abuse and the possible damage from each. In the first case the victim was placed, completed high school, entered college and has gone on to receive a master's degree. The last time I had any contact with her she was planning her marriage and said she was "through with therapy forever", asked about other members of the staff, and said to say hello to them. Did she suffer from the abuse? Yes. Is it behind her? According to her it is. The toddler who had been 'flashed' in the park was in much better shape than his mother who only witnessed the event from afar. The woman, a short term patient, was discharged in less than a week. The toddler was - well, a toddler. The mother feared, for some reason, that the criminal would track them down. The 'flasher', as far as I know, was never caught. How did you ascertain that no harm was done by the flasher on the 4 year old? I'm thinking you might make your case of no harm if you changed the age of the child to one. I would be in agreement with that as a stellar example of a case exceptional to the rule of harm. Otherwise, writing off a four year old as just "well, a toddler" is presumptive. Is anyone on here saying that child sexual abuse can be harmless?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 2, 2014 18:57:58 GMT -5
How did you ascertain that no harm was done by the flasher on the 4 year old? I'm thinking you might make your case of no harm if you changed the age of the child to one. I would be in agreement with that as a stellar example of a case exceptional to the rule of harm. Otherwise, writing off a four year old as just "well, a toddler" is presumptive. Is anyone on here saying that child sexual abuse can be harmless? i've been trying to follow the thread and i think someone has stated "a source" has said that in some cases there is no "long term" harm IF i am understanding them correctly from their source.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jul 2, 2014 19:13:22 GMT -5
How did you ascertain that no harm was done by the flasher on the 4 year old? I'm thinking you might make your case of no harm if you changed the age of the child to one. That would be a great idea but generally speaking, you have to use the age of the people involved as they were, not what is convenient for the sake of the argument. The boy was 4. These are not made up cases but actual cases. The determination that the toddler was unharmed was made by the staff and he was sent home with his mother. Followups with the family, including the toddler were, as they say, unremarkable. Of course, you could argue that perhaps 30 years later the man flashed on that scene and ended up killing himself because of that event. The determination of the staff was that both the mother and the toddler were mentally fit.But then, you did not talk to them or have a chance to look at the records.From your point of view, perhaps. But from the point of view of seeing the child, talking to the child, observing the child, reading the charts and reports from the staff regarding the child - he was just a toddler. As far as could be determined, seeing an exposed man on a playground was a non-event. These are two cases from either end of the spectrum. I have explained the outcome of the cases as determined by my observations and the observation of a professional case team. Now, do you have any other types of child sexual abuse cases that you would like to discuss? Please be sure to provide enough details that so they can be properly evaluated.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jul 2, 2014 19:30:55 GMT -5
How did you ascertain that no harm was done by the flasher on the 4 year old? I'm thinking you might make your case of no harm if you changed the age of the child to one. That would be a great idea but generally speaking, you have to use the age of the people involved as they were, not what is convenient for the sake of the argument. The boy was 4. These are not made up cases but actual cases. The determination that the toddler was unharmed was made by the staff and he was sent home with his mother. Followups with the family, including the toddler were, as they say, unremarkable. Of course, you could argue that perhaps 30 years later the man flashed on that scene and ended up killing himself because of that event. The determination of the staff was that both the mother and the toddler were mentally fit.But then, you did not talk to them or have a chance to look at the records.From your point of view, perhaps. But from the point of view of seeing the child, talking to the child, observing the child, reading the charts and reports from the staff regarding the child - he was just a toddler. As far as could be determined, seeing an exposed man on a playground was a non-event. These are two cases from either end of the spectrum. I have explained the outcome of the cases as determined by my observations and the observation of a professional case team. Now, do you have any other types of child sexual abuse cases that you would like to discuss? Please be sure to provide enough details that so they can be properly evaluated. Yes, ALL the details, please. I am quite naïve in these matters.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 2, 2014 19:49:59 GMT -5
How did you ascertain that no harm was done by the flasher on the 4 year old? I'm thinking you might make your case of no harm if you changed the age of the child to one. That would be a great idea but generally speaking, you have to use the age of the people involved as they were, not what is convenient for the sake of the argument. What I am saying is that you could have used the case of a one year old getting flashed and you would make your case. I'm sure there are lots of real life examples of it, but of course they never come to the authorities.....for a harm-related reason. Using the case of a 4 year old is much different. By 4, a great deal of your worldview is already formed. A four year isn't just a toddler and so easily dismissed, neither is a 3 year old. A toddler is generally considered under the age of 3. If a declaration of "mentally fit" is the equivalent to your idea of "unharmed", then no wonder these conversations go nowhere. And if a person has to commit suicide to give indications of harm done to him, then you are talking alien language to me. I am really curious, what constitutes "harm" to you? That comment was referring to a case of a one year old getting flashed. I can accept the "no harm" assertion in the case of a one year old getting flashed like that. I'm sure you have some special inside knowledge about no harm being done, but by your own story, the mother was greatly impacted negatively by it, yet she was also declared "mentally fit". The chances of someone being mentally fit after getting flashed is extremely high. At least that is your observation. It wasn't a non-event for the mother. Her reaction alone would have negatively impacted the child, it would bother any child, even if you couldn't see the effects. Yes, you have proved that a child was professionally declared "mentally fit" after his experience. I accept that easily and would predict a similar outcome in almost all similar cases. That's a big shift there. It would have been nice if you had provided all the information on the 4 year old case for proper evaluation but you indicated there was lots of information you are not revealing. Regardless, if you think you can "properly" evaluate a child sexual abuse case on the TMB or anywhere else, you clearly have some special abilities that the rest of us don't have.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jul 2, 2014 22:14:27 GMT -5
I think this conversation is really going no where. One thing I have got from it is that everybody here thinks CSA in any form is wrong. Of course feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. Been known to happen once or twice...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 2, 2014 23:54:36 GMT -5
I think this conversation is really going no where. One thing I have got from it is that everybody here thinks CSA in any form is wrong. Of course feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. Been known to happen once or twice... I don't think that a conversation has to actually go somewhere to be valuable. I hope that the conversation drives home one point to parents that is the bottom line behind my views on this particular thread: Don't ever get drawn into thinking that CSA may not damage your child. To the best of your ability, protect your child from any form of CSA because it is your job as a parent to do so. For literally any CSA experience your child does go through in spite of your best efforts to protect them, take steps to understand how it can adversely impact them and take appropriate steps to mitigate the damages. I am grateful that this thread has allowed me to defend that point of view.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jul 3, 2014 2:36:40 GMT -5
That would be a great idea but generally speaking, you have to use the age of the people involved as they were, not what is convenient for the sake of the argument. What I am saying is that you could have used the case of a one year old getting flashed and you would make your case. The child was 4. I presented the case and your comment is that I used the wrong case?I am sure there are many cases but not ones with which I was familiar.Using a case with a 4 year old is different from what? I stated the case, explained the circumstances, and described the outcome. Other than your opinion that I used the wrong age child what is your concern? I used the information I had and presented the facts.So? The child was 4. That is the case.I referred to the boy as a toddler and provided his age. If you would like to consider him a pre-school child feel free. From a psychiatric viewpoint, what do you think mentally fit means? Who said someone had to commit suicide to show harm has been done? Someone has been harmed when their ability to function as a normal human being has been compromised by external events. You can continue to debate the age of the child involved. The case involved a 4 year old child. The outcome was stated. That isn't my story at all. I didn't say the mother was "greatly impacted negatively by it". You have again presented a distorted version. The woman was a short term in patient for a different matter. She witnessed the event while on the playground with her child. I believe that any parent would have reacted in a similar manner if they saw the events unfolding from a distance. Yes it is my opinion based on the factors I listed.No, the mother was concerned when she observed the event.Really? What did she say to her son? How did he react? What, exactly, action bothered the child? I haven't proved anything. I gave the outcome of an event and provided my opinion. I don't believe I ever indicated that there was information I was not revealing. I provided all pertinent information. Again, you have distorted what I wrote. Again, I didn't say I could evaluate a child abuse case. I said to present child sexual abuse cases that you would like to discuss. I also said to provide enough information regarding the details so they can be properly evaluated. Hypothetical cases live and die by the details.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 3, 2014 7:08:55 GMT -5
Is anyone on here saying that child sexual abuse can be harmless? i've been trying to follow the thread and i think someone has stated "a source" has said that in some cases there is no "long term" harm IF i am understanding them correctly from their source. If the ideas presented here were merely "some cases no long term harm", the discussion wouldn't go on endlessly. Many cases of CSA find healing and long term harm is mitigated. I expect it would be difficult finding anyone to disagree with that. If that were so, a whole branch of health care professionals would have to quit their therapeutic work. WINGS strongly recommends that CSA survivors engage in counseling and therapy as a means to deal with the harmful effects of CSA. For a better idea of some of the issues being discussed here, please read this response letter by Dr. Kinsler to Susan Clancy after she wrote to the Boston Globe where she proposes in her book that it is not the sexual abuse itself that causes trauma, but “the narrative that is later imposed on the abuse experience.” To read the response of a victim of CSA to Clancy's ideas, check her blog here: ordinaryevil.wordpress.com/2010/01/13/mental-health-expert-claims-that-child-sexual-abuse-is-rarely-painful-or-terrifying/ In the letter to the editor reprinted below, The Leadership Council’s advisory board member Dr. Philip Kinsler responded to a Boston Globe Letter to the editor by Dr. Susan Clancy, in which she stated, “For children, sexual abuse is rarely painful or terrifying at the time it occurs.” Children are Harmed by Sexual Abuse The Boston Globe Letters to the Editor Children are Harmed by Sexual Abuse February 27, 2005 AS A PROFESSIONAL who has devoted many years to trying to aid in the healing of child sexual abuse survivors, I was surprised by the peremptory tone and deficient scholarship in Susan Clancy’s Feb. 20 letter regarding child sexual abuse (”The concept of repression”).
The notion that child sexual abuse is usually not harmful is ignorant at best and provides pernicious support to pedophiles at worst. This pseudoscience was thoroughly debunked in the controversy over the infamous Rind study in 1998 alleging similar notions to Clancy’s. Clancy states she does ”not believe that repression exists.”
Personal belief does not belong in scientific discussions.
There are more than 85 studies in the literature, conducted using multiple research paradigms, that verify the phenomenon of fragmentary or total traumatic amnesia. No study that has asked survivors the question has failed to find a robust number of persons reporting the phenomenon.
The difficulty of creating this phenomenon in laboratories using word lists with college sophomores is a problem of research design and paradigm; not a lack of effect of trauma on memory. And Dr. Jennifer Freyd has shown that word-list experiments carefully done do find traumatic memory effects.
As a therapist, I have worked with survivors of priest abuse and seen first hand their shattered faith in themselves, in the priesthood, in the church, in God. The notion that most victims of sexual abuse are gently groomed for an experience they do not find distasteful is shocking in its ignorance. Studies of the natural history of abusive families indicate that in familial abuse there is typically a mixture of family violence, parental alcoholism, and child sexual abuse.
Tell me that my clients who have been raped at gunpoint by drunken relatives firing guns near their heads to obtain compliance have not been harmed. Clancy’s letter is a biased document whose errors of logic and scholarship do not reflect the state of the science and serves to support the dangerous notion that children can give consent to and are not harmed by sexual abuse.
PHILIP J. KINSLER, PhD
Lyme , N.H.www.psyfil.net/(Dr. Kinsler is Adjunct Assistant Professor of Psychiatry at Dartmouth Medical School, where he supervises psychiatry residents’ diagnostic and therapy work. Dr. Kinsler is an experienced expert witness and testifies broadly on criminal, civil, and family court matters. Dr. Kinsler is extensively published in the fields of psychological trauma, suggestibility in interviews of children and adults, relational psychotherapy of trauma survivors, and ethical forensic practice.)
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jul 3, 2014 10:06:16 GMT -5
I think this conversation is really going no where. One thing I have got from it is that everybody here thinks CSA in any form is wrong. Of course feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. Been known to happen once or twice... I don't think that a conversation has to actually go somewhere to be valuable. I hope that the conversation drives home one point to parents that is the bottom line behind my views on this particular thread: Don't ever get drawn into thinking that CSA may not damage your child. To the best of your ability, protect your child from any form of CSA because it is your job as a parent to do so. For literally any CSA experience your child does go through in spite of your best efforts to protect them, take steps to understand how it can adversely impact them and take appropriate steps to mitigate the damages. I am grateful that this thread has allowed me to defend that point of view. I agree that we should never assume CSA won't damage a child. I don't think anyone is saying that we should. I hope everyone understands the potential for harm anytime that CSA occurs? I also agree that debating the issue is not wasted. I just think both sides have more in common then they think.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 3, 2014 11:07:05 GMT -5
I don't think that a conversation has to actually go somewhere to be valuable. I hope that the conversation drives home one point to parents that is the bottom line behind my views on this particular thread: Don't ever get drawn into thinking that CSA may not damage your child. To the best of your ability, protect your child from any form of CSA because it is your job as a parent to do so. For literally any CSA experience your child does go through in spite of your best efforts to protect them, take steps to understand how it can adversely impact them and take appropriate steps to mitigate the damages. I am grateful that this thread has allowed me to defend that point of view. I agree that we should never assume CSA won't damage a child. I don't think anyone is saying that we should. I hope everyone understands the potential for harm anytime that CSA occurs? I also agree that debating the issue is not wasted. I just think both sides have more in common then they think. To me, this isn't about "sides" of a debate. My primary interest in this subject is the protection of children from harm and as you say, any assumption of non-damage to a child should never be done.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jul 3, 2014 14:22:31 GMT -5
I agree that we should never assume CSA won't damage a child. I don't think anyone is saying that we should. I hope everyone understands the potential for harm anytime that CSA occurs? I also agree that debating the issue is not wasted. I just think both sides have more in common then they think. There is no need to assume anything about the outcome of any child sexual abuse. Not one of the researchers suggested this. Whether children should be protected from child sexual abuse is not dependent on the effect or non-effect that child sexual abuse has on children. If it were proved that child sexual abuse never had any effect on children, short or long term, it would still be wrong. The problem arises when research presents data that goes against the popular view. An excellent example is the blog posted by CD. In it the writer states: However, contrary to your ignorant opinion, and contrary to the endless amounts of evidence –rape, sodomy, and a toddler having a man’s penis shoved down its throat is NOT rare, NOR a myth. If you are saying that forced fellatio is not traumatizing for the child, then someone ought to revoke your license. Contrary to your absolutely irresponsible belief system, when my father first placed his penis in my mouth at age three, I was traumatized, choked, and terrified. When he raped me on a cold bathroom floor at age seven, and I thought I was dying because I did not know what was happening to me, I experienced terror beyond description. ... She is essentially saying that the rape, sodomy, and sexual violation of a child’s body does not harm the child, is not painful for the child, and does not create fear or terror. ... Ms. Clancy has obviously never been raped by a full grown man when she was a child, or vaginally penetrated with a foreign object by her father or step-father. She has obviously never endured being straddled by a man four times her size while she sleeps, only to be awakened by one of his hands over her mouth, and the other groping her vagina. Susan Clancy has never been forced by her older brother to perform oral sex on her own sister. It is directly opposed to what Clancy presented in her work. This is obviously a case where there was trauma and it did produce long term harm. The claim is made that it is not a rare occurrence but there is absolutely nothing to support the claim. But the emotional condemnation of research, ignoring what was actually presented, prevents a clear analysis of the facts and ignoring the actual research being presented illicits a negative knee-jerk reaction for many. The included Boston Globe letter suffers from the same problem but this time at the hands of a professional who should have read the book first. Tell me that my clients who have been raped at gunpoint by drunken relatives firing guns near their heads to obtain compliance have not been harmed. PHILIP J. KINSLER, PhD All of the examples used would easily fit into the narrowly defined definition that Clancy used and provided several times in her publication. Yet both writers attempt to claim that Clancy would not have considered these situations traumatic. People have strong emotional feelings and certainly have a right to voice their beliefs. However it also points out why blogs are generally not given a lot of weight when looking for more than anecdotal evidence.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jul 3, 2014 16:45:45 GMT -5
I agree that we should never assume CSA won't damage a child. I don't think anyone is saying that we should. I hope everyone understands the potential for harm anytime that CSA occurs? I also agree that debating the issue is not wasted. I just think both sides have more in common then they think. There is no need to assume anything about the outcome of any child sexual abuse. Not one of the researchers suggested this. Whether children should be protected from child sexual abuse is not dependent on the effect or non-effect that child sexual abuse has on children. If it were proved that child sexual abuse never had any effect on children, short or long term, it would still be wrong. I think that's pretty much what I just said? Whether is has an effect, damage or not it is still wrong.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jul 3, 2014 20:01:28 GMT -5
There is no need to assume anything about the outcome of any child sexual abuse. Not one of the researchers suggested this. Whether children should be protected from child sexual abuse is not dependent on the effect or non-effect that child sexual abuse has on children. If it were proved that child sexual abuse never had any effect on children, short or long term, it would still be wrong. I think that's pretty much what I just said? Whether is has an effect, damage or not it is still wrong. I looked at the phrase " I agree that we should never assume CSA won't damage a child." and turned it into the positive statement by eliminating the two negatives giving " I agree that we should assume CSA will damage a child." That is the assumption that we do not have to make. We should recognize that CSA is wrong, independent of the damage, and prevent it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 3, 2014 22:36:50 GMT -5
I think that's pretty much what I just said? Whether is has an effect, damage or not it is still wrong. I looked at the phrase " I agree that we should never assume CSA won't damage a child." and turned it into the positive statement by eliminating the two negatives giving " I agree that we should assume CSA will damage a child." That is the assumption that we do not have to make. We should recognize that CSA is wrong, independent of the damage, and prevent it. Snow is correct. Eliminate the double negative and we should assume that all CSA will damage a child. That way, we will never be wrong to put ourselves in a position to help children who are harmed by it. To assume that all CSA is merely wrong puts us in a passive position to help victims. Your example of the 4 year old "toddler" is proof positive of the error of assuming no harm. Coincidentally, I have been studying the complex life of Jim Morrison (The Doors). This is an excerpt from his biography: "In 1947, Morrison, then four years old, allegedly witnessed a car accident in the desert, in which a family of Native Americans were injured and possibly killed. He referred to this incident in a spoken word performance on the song "Dawn's Highway" from the album An American Prayer, and again in the songs "Peace Frog" and "Ghost Song". Morrison believed this incident to be the most formative event of his life." Morrison went on to a most fascinating life, including death before the age of 30, probably inadvertently self inflicted due to drugs. The interesting part of Morrison's 4 year old experience is that his family doesn't remember it that way. They remember a similar experience but not in the "formative" way that Jim did. Unfortunately, your expected logical analysis of this will never be able to explain this because it was a highly charged emotional experience for him. Sure, he was just a "toddler" but this perceived event (it may not have been accurate) defined his life. The point is, there are no "just a toddler". A 4 year old is at one of the most formative intersections of his/her life. If you want to destroy a life, offend the child at age 4.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jul 4, 2014 6:55:56 GMT -5
Snow is correct. Eliminate the double negative and we should assume that all CSA will damage a child. That way, we will never be wrong to put ourselves in a position to help children who are harmed by it. To assume that all CSA is merely wrong puts us in a passive position to help victims. Protecting children from the wrong doing of others is no more passive that protecting our children from what think might cause possible harm. Again you have distorted what I posted. The example of the 4-year old being flashed is an example of what qualified as child sexual abuse that had no immediate effect on the victim nor any discernible effect for the time the child was under observation. If anything it is an example of a case where what is considered child sexual abuse does not have an effect on the victim. It has been my observation that children of that age group really don't care if people are wearing pants or not and I spend an extraordinary amount of time putting pants back on my grandchildren every time we get ready to leave the house! What is frustrating and tiring about having a discussion with CD is that his replies frequently distort the facts so it appears that the posts of others support his beliefs. And then an extraordinary amount of time is spent correcting what amounts to lies that have been posted. And it does appear to go around and around because even after the error has been pointed out it is often repeated and needs to be corrected again. This is not just my observation but in revisiting posts it is clear that it happens with many who post opposing views. There is no need for a logical explanation. Given the facts you presented either he is correctly recalling the event and his parents are incorrect in their memory or he has recreated the event in his mind and his parents are correct.So he claims and, from his point of view, that is probably accurate. I believe all of the research presented stated that traumatic events are remembered by children, not repressed. This was one of the points of contention in the research.Age 4 is one of the most formative intersections? How did you arrive at that conclusion? What are the other points?I assume you are saying this is reference to a flasher exposing himself to people on a playground. But the 4 year old was nor offended. Wearing pants or not wearing pants is of little consequence to a 4 year old.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 4, 2014 8:18:30 GMT -5
Snow is correct. Eliminate the double negative and we should assume that all CSA will damage a child. That way, we will never be wrong to put ourselves in a position to help children who are harmed by it. To assume that all CSA is merely wrong puts us in a passive position to help victims. Protecting children from the wrong doing of others is no more passive that protecting our children from what think might cause possible harm. If it is merely wrong but not harmful, what do you have to protect them from? That is what you have failed to explain and makes no sense at all. People protect children from harm. Yes, I am well aware there is a troika of concern who have difficulty with differences and set up a defense by claiming "misrepresentation" and "lying". It is quite transparent and I am quite cognizant of the PM's that are going on over this to find solace. What is frustrating about discussing things with rational is that he cannot bear opposition and frustrates it with a litany of obfuscations, rabbit holes, and distortions. Please note how many people actually engage in discussions with rational and his group. Note how many "likes" he gets on his posts. Note how many people have left this site because of his treatment of them in discussions with which he does not agree. The list is long and getting longer all the time. Oh yes, it's all about the facts, isn't it? I will be around awhile longer to call rational on his views, uncomfortable as that may be for him. The point isn't about his recollection. The point is that an event at 4 years old, it was considered the most formative event of his life. This is not unusual at all. These are highly impressionable years. And it is little wonder that it was a point of contention. Children are most impressionable in the earliest years of their life. Your suggestion of "just a toddler" at four years old indicates complete ignorance of how important those early years are. It is one of the most demeaning statements I have heard on this site for a long time. The Jesuit maxim is "Give me the child for seven years, and I will give you the man." They didn't pull that statement out of nowhere. There is no reference to the flasher in that statement. It was an illustration and discussion on the impressionability of a 4 year old. This is typical of your obfuscation and distortion of the posts of people post opposing views to you. It's little wonder many have left this site because of you. It's little wonder the PMB collapsed and little wonder that the TLC was set up and kept certain people out. Unlike yourself, many of these folks don't complain about how they are treated by those with opposing views, they just leave. At the rate it is happening, you will be soon be here talking to yourself and about 3 or 4 others. I'm not complaining, it's just something you might like to know. In the case you cited, the 4 year old was declared "mentally fit" and gave no perceptible signs of offense. Unless you are a mind reader, it is impossible to ascertain exactly how the 4 year old processed the event. For parents to subject him to a mental fitness test and write him off as "just a toddler" is remarkably irresponsible. Like yourself, Jim Morrison's parents had no clue how a seemingly innocuous event affected him for a lifetime Unreal. A stranger walking up to a 4 year old and dangling his junk in front of him is of little consequence to a 4 year old? All 4 year olds? (or is that too much of a distortion of your meaning?) Do you tell guests in your house that flashing your 4 year old children/grandchildren is of little consequence to them? What planet does this idea come from? Did the authorities conduct mental fitness tests on the child just because they felt like it or did they have knowledge that these experiences can be traumatic to children? Oh wait, I can hear it now, I have just distorted your post meaning and now you are frustrated!
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jul 4, 2014 10:22:47 GMT -5
Protecting children from the wrong doing of others is no more passive that protecting our children from what think might cause possible harm. If it is merely wrong but not harmful, what do you have to protect them from? That is what you have failed to explain and makes no sense at all. People protect children from harm. This certainly has been demonstrated to be the prevailing sentiment. And, when viewed as such, what indeed are we protecting the children from is it cannot be claimed that all child sexual abuse causes harm. There is the possibility that we are protecting then from activity that is simply wrong. I am not simply claiming you have distorted what I have posted I have provided examples. The fact that you fail to acknowledge the distortion and continue to post the misinformation does not mean the distortion did not exist. Not sure who has been sending you PMs or who you feel is sending them. Point out a distortion and I will respond.I do not know of any group that I have not anyone who follows what I post exceptg a single person who I would guess set it up in error.I was not aware that posting is a popularity contest nor do I pay attention to the likes to guide what I post.For me, yes. For others it is all about the emotion. If asking for verification is onerous, don't post unsupported beliefs as facts. It is only the deliberate distortions that are uncomfortable. I expect people to challenge what I post in the same way I challenge them. I don't expect people to misquote what I post. All childhood years are impressionable. I was asking how you arrived at the point of saying 4 was one of the most impressionable years? With the amount of money that is on the line I agree. Susan J. Kelley 'recovered' memories from children and ruined the lives of many people in her zeal. But, on the up side, was well compensated for her efforts. Children are most impressionable in the earliest years of their life. Your suggestion of "just a toddler" at four years old indicates complete ignorance of how important those early years are. It is one of the most demeaning statements I have heard on this site for a long time.[/quote]Demeaning to whom? The child who couldn't have cared less that someone was loosing their pants? Or the person who needs to believe that a child seeing someone without their pants is somehow damaging? Nope. But they didn't pick 4 years as you did, stating that 4 is one of the most formative years. Was it traumatic? You have compared the sight to people involved in an accident (perhaps killed) to a person flashing people in a park. What is the comparison? It is like the person writing the blog you referenced giving graphic descriptions of sexual abuse and then claiming that Clancy was wrong when she claimed that not all child sexual abuse was traumatic.Please point out the distortion.Well, thanks for the heads-up. That was my evaluation and that of a professional staff of social/mental health workers. Of course, to maintain your belief that there was damage you could always continue to believe that everyone who has been exposed to any child sexual abuse is damaged whether they are aware of it or not and even if it is not delectable by any known means. It just exists.I don't recall saying that the child was subjected to any test. He was there with his mom because there was no other place for him to go while his mother was an inpatient.Are you still comparing traumatic and non-traumatic events? Could you quote from any post I made where I said the flasher walked up to any person at the park and exposed himself? I said he exposed himself to people in the park.Sad.I don't know. You are the only one talking about a stranger walking up to the child and "dangling his junk in front of him".Could you post where I said anyone conducted any tests at all on the child?
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jul 4, 2014 11:12:54 GMT -5
I think that's pretty much what I just said? Whether is has an effect, damage or not it is still wrong. I looked at the phrase " I agree that we should never assume CSA won't damage a child." and turned it into the positive statement by eliminating the two negatives giving " I agree that we should assume CSA will damage a child." That is the assumption that we do not have to make. We should recognize that CSA is wrong, independent of the damage, and prevent it. Not what I meant so guess I worded it wrong. The last part of my post aligns with your's I believe. It is wrong and needs to be prevented.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 4, 2014 11:58:15 GMT -5
[/quote]
[/quote] Typically meaningless rabbit-hole post, except I am glad that you acknowledge hearing about the effects of your posting on members here even though it has been pointed out on numerous occasions. Acknowledgement that you heard it is the first step to understanding why this occurs.
This is a typical tactic to distort and derail a conversation. I didn't specifically say that you said anyone conducted tests nor do I have to. Mental fitness is determined by testing a patient for it. If you would like some information on that, I could easily find some for you. I would be most interested in knowing if the 4 year old and his mother were determined to be mentally fit without any testing whatsoever. If so, that would be a case for professional misconduct, but perhaps you're not interested in that......
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jul 4, 2014 13:59:35 GMT -5
I am all about understanding. I actually find it somewhat unbelievable that you would say this in the same post where you said: Did the authorities conduct mental fitness tests on the child just because they felt like it or did they have knowledge that these experiences can be traumatic to children?The authorities (who ever you think they might be) did not conduct any tests simply because they felt like it or because they had some secret knowledge that these experiences indicated there was anything traumatic. They did not conduct any test on the child. I never said they conducted any tests on the child for any reason. He was not the patient. This is a fabrication on your part. Additional information, composed from whole cloth, in an effort to support your beliefs. I can see how by claiming you did not specifically state I had said there was testing that you might think it was appropriate to say, regarding the information I had provided, that there was testing. Really? Perhaps I have been derelict in my duty.Yes, please provide the information that states mental fitness in a patient can only be determined by testing.When you come back with the tests required to determine mental fitness we can move on with the discussion. Hmmm. Professional misconduct because the staff of an institution meets and is an agreement that a patient is mentally fit. I have been out of the field for a time and perhaps things have changed. Perhaps you could walk me through the possibility of misconduct as you see it. A young mother, single and living with her 4 year old son, presents with anxiety and self-stated suicidal thoughts. Her doctor decides, knowing her situation, that the best course of action would be a short term admittance to an institution where the mother would feel safe and there would be staff to look after her needs, provide counseling, and help manage the care of the child. A somewhat typical half-way house but, in this case, one closely associated with a major mental health institution as well. The mother responds well to the care and the therapy and after a short time the staff is in agreement that she is no longer a risk to herself or anyone else and releases her with follow-up appointments in place. During her stay she and her son were at the park when a male exhibited himself to the people in the park. The woman was concerned that the man could be a danger to her and her son but upon reflection realized that this was not a likely outcome. I am really wondering what tests you think are administered to patients prior to discharge.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jul 4, 2014 15:34:08 GMT -5
The example of the 4-year old being flashed is an example of what qualified as child sexual abuse that had no immediate effect on the victim nor any discernible effect for the time the child was under observation. If anything it is an example of a case where what is considered child sexual abuse does not have an effect on the victim. Give us an example of a 4-year old who is raped and shows no discernible effect throughout his/her lifetime.
|
|