|
Post by fixit on Jul 1, 2014 21:06:28 GMT -5
And yes, Finklehor does state that of the reported cases of abuse about 2/ 3 show symptoms of trauma. But remember that the reported cases probably represent the minority of abuse cases. There are reasons why many abuse cases are not reported. One reason determined was that the 'victim' was not traumatized and in some cases did not consider it abuse. In many cases it was simply forgotten. Some reasons for sexual abuse victims not reporting: 1. Victim suicide 2. Death of the abuser 3. Victim spiralling into substance abuse, crime, abusive relationships, promiscuity or prostitution as a direct result of the abuse 4. Fear of destroying family relationships 5. Fear of not being believed, or being dragged through court, or retribution from the perpetrator 6. Fear of hell for reporting "the Lord's anointed" 7. Unwilling for the stigma Discompassionate onlookers might dismiss all of the above as "simply forgotten".
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2014 21:14:37 GMT -5
Some children are victims of child abuse, emotional, sexual, and physical, and do not suffer any measurable long term problems. In some cases the attempt to "help" these people causes damage. Others do suffer varying amounts of damage, both short and long term. However it does need to be reiterated that abuse of children, emotional, sexual and/or physical, is wrong, no matter what the outcome for the child. This is a view that I have always held and is consistent with the views presented by Finklehor, Clancy, and other researchers mentioned. Did a U turn, went around the block so to speak and saw the opportunity to do another drive by ... The first sentence above, Rational. Is this sentence true in the same sense as some people fight on the front line in wars and do not suffer measurable long term problems? Is it stating more about the resilience of human beings than the nature of the experience/abuse? I think it is a pity some of the posters here don't seem to accept the second paragraph. It is not aiding anyone's understand to suggest you or Clancy believe CSA is ok.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jul 1, 2014 21:38:55 GMT -5
For a proportion of victims of child sexual assault the experience is predominantly confusing rather than directly traumatic or abusive. Whether it is predominantly confusing or in some cases confusing would be a question. True. I can see how the statement is not clear. I meant, as you stated, that for the abused children who were not traumatized that confusion seemed to be the reaction. For the group that did not find the experience traumatic, there were not a lot of negative outcomes. What makes you think that the child would think it was his/her fault to start with? They are a child that may be caressed for the sexual gratification of an adult. Why would a child assume there was something wrong that was their fault?Exactly. It would be like arriving at the office and being told not to worry because it wasn't your fault that your co-worker tripped over the legs of your chair. Guidelines are there to set a framework. If the victim doesn't think it is their fault why would you tell them it wasn't their fault? Based on this guideline it is assumed that the child was traumatized. As pointed out but Clancy and many others, the definition of what was and what was not traumatic was narrowly defined. Clancy's work was focused more on the fact that it is widely assumed that child sexual abuse is always a traumatic experience for the victim when the data does not support that view. This leads to the question of whether treating a non-traumatic experience as if it was a traumatic experience actually creates a traumatic experience. It leads the victim to question, as an older individual, "Why didn't I stop the abuse?" "Is it my fault?" When, at the time of the abuse, these thoughts were not present because the victim was, after all, a child. I would agree. But I don't think Clancy assumed it was a 'neutral' experience but that it was not a traumatic experience as defined by the research protocol. From the viewpoint of a child, do you think it would it be a traumatic experience? Not imparting adult views on a child's experience is a difficult thing to do. Child abuse, for most adults, is a horrific experience and should never happen to a child. But this is not always the case to the child involved.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jul 1, 2014 21:49:08 GMT -5
Some children are victims of child abuse, emotional, sexual, and physical, and do not suffer any measurable long term problems. In some cases the attempt to "help" these people causes damage. Others do suffer varying amounts of damage, both short and long term. However it does need to be reiterated that abuse of children, emotional, sexual and/or physical, is wrong, no matter what the outcome for the child. This is a view that I have always held and is consistent with the views presented by Finklehor, Clancy, and other researchers mentioned. Did a U turn, went around the block so to speak and saw the opportunity to do another drive by ... The first sentence above, Rational. Is this sentence true in the same sense as some people fight on the front line in wars and do not suffer measurable long term problems? Is it stating more about the resilience of human beings than the nature of the experience/abuse? For a variety of reasons people react differently to stress and traumatic experiences. I know people who flew dozens of bomb runs over Germany and came home to live normal lives. Others, flying the same missions, came home and killed themselves. People cannot all be treated the same. I believe it is more that they feel that the victims are being somehow overlooked because the claim is made that CSA is not devastating for all victims. I have heard from several that it is as if I am saying "They should just get over it, forget it, and live their lives - other victims get over it." This is, of course, not the case. Not is it what Clancy or any other researcher said.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jul 1, 2014 22:21:51 GMT -5
Since I'm driving by I might as well throw out some unqualified impressions based on my anecdotal personal view of the world. I have found confusion to be a source of trauma in my life, both as adult and child. I have observed it as being a trauma for other human beings. In my professional employment providing educational and therapuetic experiences for youth my experience is that minimising confusion would have to one of the core principles underpinning program design. I can see Clancy's studies have raised some vital issues but concluding confusion is a 'neutral' experience does not fit with my reality. There is nothing a predator wants more than a confused victim. Confused victims cannot be relied upon to use good judgment or testify reliably, and that is a trauma in itself.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jul 2, 2014 6:08:42 GMT -5
Since I'm driving by I might as well throw out some unqualified impressions based on my anecdotal personal view of the world. I have found confusion to be a source of trauma in my life, both as adult and child. I have observed it as being a trauma for other human beings. In my professional employment providing educational and therapuetic experiences for youth my experience is that minimising confusion would have to one of the core principles underpinning program design. I can see Clancy's studies have raised some vital issues but concluding confusion is a 'neutral' experience does not fit with my reality. There is nothing a predator wants more than a confused victim. Confused victims cannot be relied upon to use good judgment or testify reliably, and that is a trauma in itself. 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.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 2, 2014 6:21:34 GMT -5
Surely it must be easy and simple. Just do it and stop beating around the bush. Really, I am prepared to humble myself in my alleged error. I cannot produce what does not exist. You are claiming to paraphrase content that does not exist. Perhaps in your mind. And how is what you stated just now inconsistent with the phrase: "I agree with both Finklehor and Clancy that some children suffer trauma from their sexual abuse experiences."? And yes, Finklehor does state that of the reported cases of abuse about 2/ 3 show symptoms of trauma. But remember that the reported cases probably represent the minority of abuse cases. There are reasons why many abuse cases are not reported. One reason determined was that the 'victim' was not traumatized and in some cases did not consider it abuse. In many cases it was simply forgotten. I have explained many times what I experienced while working with hundreds of individuals who had experienced child abuse of all types and across the spectrum from minor to severe. My observations were met here on TMB with emotional outbursts and the same type of response that has been experienced by others who voiced an opinion that was not in line with the current politically correct thinking. Despite the many written records on various sites, the posted stories of Jean and others, posters telling of their own experiences with physical abuse the claim was made repeatedly that physical abuse within the F&W was negligible and not an issue. This in spite of a case in MI where children were removed from a family because the state felt the children were in danger. This is an example of how entrenched people are in their beliefs and how difficult it is, even with supporting evidence, to have individuals even consider possibilities that run counter to the current politically correct thinking. As an alternative approach I located well researched publications that supported what I had observed and the result was the same - instant denial of any validity because it did not agree with the present line of thinking. Distortion of what the research presented rather than a discussion of what the research actually claimed. Some children are victims of child abuse, emotional, sexual, and physical, and do not suffer any measurable long term problems. In some cases the attempt to "help" these people causes damage. Others do suffer varying amounts of damage, both short and long term. However it does need to be reiterated that abuse of children, emotional, sexual and/or physical, is wrong, no matter what the outcome for the child. This is a view that I have always held and is consistent with the views presented by Finklehor, Clancy, and other researchers mentioned. These are questions that are not possible to answer with the information provided. The definition of child sexual abuse is so broad that the there would need to be explicit descriptions of what happened, the relationship between the two actors, whether the experience was forced or voluntary, the age of the actors, the length of the experience, did the abuse involve contact or not, the ultimate conclusion of the activity, was the abuse discovered or did no one else know about the experience, etc. This highlights the problem with making unqualified claims about child abuse. So, then your view is that very few children who experience child/adult sex suffer damages?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 2, 2014 6:44:20 GMT -5
And yes, Finklehor does state that of the reported cases of abuse about 2/ 3 show symptoms of trauma. But remember that the reported cases probably represent the minority of abuse cases. There are reasons why many abuse cases are not reported. One reason determined was that the 'victim' was not traumatized and in some cases did not consider it abuse. In many cases it was simply forgotten. Some reasons for sexual abuse victims not reporting: 1. Victim suicide 2. Death of the abuser 3. Victim spiralling into substance abuse, crime, abusive relationships, promiscuity or prostitution as a direct result of the abuse 4. Fear of destroying family relationships 5. Fear of not being believed, or being dragged through court, or retribution from the perpetrator 6. Fear of hell for reporting "the Lord's anointed" 7. Unwilling for the stigma Discompassionate onlookers might dismiss all of the above as "simply forgotten". And much more (some overlapping your list): incomprehension, shame, threats by perp, fear of family breakup, fear of loss of affection loyalty conflicts, not wanting to burden others hoping forgetfulness will ease the pain fear of unreliable memory if not reported after a long time belief they deserved what they got lack of guarantee of a successful legal outcome, fear of mental abuse by the other side of the legal team
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 2, 2014 7:07:14 GMT -5
Some children are victims of child abuse, emotional, sexual, and physical, and do not suffer any measurable long term problems. In some cases the attempt to "help" these people causes damage. Others do suffer varying amounts of damage, both short and long term. However it does need to be reiterated that abuse of children, emotional, sexual and/or physical, is wrong, no matter what the outcome for the child. This is a view that I have always held and is consistent with the views presented by Finklehor, Clancy, and other researchers mentioned. Did a U turn, went around the block so to speak and saw the opportunity to do another drive by ... The first sentence above, Rational. Is this sentence true in the same sense as some people fight on the front line in wars and do not suffer measurable long term problems? Is it stating more about the resilience of human beings than the nature of the experience/abuse? I think it is a pity some of the posters here don't seem to accept the second paragraph. It is not aiding anyone's understand to suggest you or Clancy believe CSA is ok.I haven't noticed any posters here who don't accept the second paragraph. The concerns expressed here by myself are the logical outcome of any position which holds that the effects of child abuse are at best confusion. We protect our children from abuse because of the damages it causes, not because the perp is a bad guy or is wrong, it is because the perp is effecting damages by his or her actions. Once we accept that the outcome is mostly mere confusion and that "help" will cause damage, then the logical extension to that is the solution is either nothing or mere clarification and explanation......unless there is some other solution to confusion that I am not aware of.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jul 2, 2014 7:17:00 GMT -5
So, then your view is that very few children who experience child/adult sex suffer damages? My statement regarding this was: Some children are victims of child abuse, emotional, sexual, and physical, and do not suffer any measurable long term problems. In some cases the attempt to "help" these people causes damage. Others do suffer varying amounts of damage, both short and long term.There is no indication that my view is that very few children who experience child/adult sex suffer damages.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 2, 2014 7:17:56 GMT -5
Some reasons for sexual abuse victims not reporting: 1. Victim suicide 2. Death of the abuser 3. Victim spiraling into substance abuse, crime, abusive relationships, promiscuity or prostitution as a direct result of the abuse 4. Fear of destroying family relationships 5. Fear of not being believed, or being dragged through court, or retribution from the perpetrator 6. Fear of hell for reporting "the Lord's anointed" 7. Unwilling for the stigma Discompassionate onlookers might dismiss all of the above as "simply forgotten". And much more (some overlapping your list): incomprehension, shame, threats by perp, fear of family breakup, fear of loss of affection loyalty conflicts, not wanting to burden others hoping forgetfulness will ease the pain fear of unreliable memory if not reported after a long time belief they deserved what they got lack of guarantee of a successful legal outcome, fear of mental abuse by the other side of the legal team A good list of the backside of reporting abuse -- and all but a couple of these suffer a doubled or tripled effect for victims within 2x2ism. Another aspect especially true for 2x2 victims, is that although these risks are non-contestable and well understood -- the well founded logic still to be dealt with is the thought "Realistically, What will be gained by going through these enormous risks involved in reporting procedure. As we have noticed, often even in the best of cases there is "NOTHING IS GAINED" for the victim -- except a minor portion of vengeance - if that has a value. The fellowship would in reality be the prime winner in the end, if they could understand that --- but we are all aware of the fact that this fellowship will buck the process from day one!!!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 2, 2014 7:21:48 GMT -5
So, then your view is that very few children who experience child/adult sex suffer damages? My statement regarding this was: Some children are victims of child abuse, emotional, sexual, and physical, and do not suffer any measurable long term problems. In some cases the attempt to "help" these people causes damage. Others do suffer varying amounts of damage, both short and long term.There is no indication that my view is that very few children who experience child/adult sex suffer damages. So then your view is that most children in these circumstances suffer damages?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 2, 2014 7:28:07 GMT -5
And much more (some overlapping your list): incomprehension, shame, threats by perp, fear of family breakup, fear of loss of affection loyalty conflicts, not wanting to burden others hoping forgetfulness will ease the pain fear of unreliable memory if not reported after a long time belief they deserved what they got lack of guarantee of a successful legal outcome, fear of mental abuse by the other side of the legal team A good list of the backside of reporting abuse -- and all but a couple of these suffer a doubled or tripled effect for victims within 2x2ism. Another aspect especially true for 2x2 victims, is that although these risks are non-contestable and well understood -- the well founded logic still to be dealt with is the thought "Realistically, What will be gained by going through these enormous risks involved in reporting procedure. As we have noticed, often even in the best of cases there is "NOTHING IS GAINED" for the victim -- except a minor portion of vengeance - if that has a value. The fellowship would in reality be the prime winner in the end, if they could understand that --- but we are all aware of the fact that this fellowship will buck the process from day one!!! A good summary of most of these is this: when a victim sees no net upside to reporting, they will not report.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 2, 2014 7:33:41 GMT -5
Most professional opinions will suggest that EVERY VICTIM of sexual abuse -- especially children -- suffer significant damage. Victims may deny this for long periods of time. I have read that an average time frame for report/acknowledging sexual abuse is close to 20 years. Something that the Catholic church has found out.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jul 2, 2014 7:34:36 GMT -5
The concerns expressed here by myself are the logical outcome of any position which holds that the effects of child abuse are at best confusion. But no one has claimed this. No one, except you, has proposed this is the case. This in itself may be the problem. We should protect our children from child abuse because it is wrong and not because of the damage it may or may not cause. As the researchers have claimed and as I have stated many times, it doesn't matter if there is long term damage or not, child abuse, sexual, emotional, and/or physical is wrong.Again, with the exception of yourself, no one has said that the outcome of child abuse is "mostly mere confusion".
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 2, 2014 7:57:04 GMT -5
The concerns expressed here by myself are the logical outcome of any position which holds that the effects of child abuse are at best confusion. But no one has claimed this. No one, except you, has proposed this is the case. This in itself may be the problem. We should protect our children from child abuse because it is wrong and not because of the damage it may or may not cause. As the researchers have claimed and as I have stated many times, it doesn't matter if there is long term damage or not, child abuse, sexual, emotional, and/or physical is wrong.Again, with the exception of yourself, no one has said that the outcome of child abuse is "mostly mere confusion". So is it in your opinion that most children suffer damages from child/adult sexual abuse?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 2, 2014 8:03:05 GMT -5
Most professional opinions will suggest that EVERY VICTIM of sexual abuse -- especially children -- suffer significant damage. Victims may deny this for long periods of time. I have read that an average time frame for report/acknowledging sexual abuse is close to 20 years. Something that the Catholic church has found out. Thank you Edgar. I agree with those professionals, and that is precisely why sexual abuse (and all abuse) is wrong. That is what makes abuse, abuse. Abuse is abuse because it is harmful or injurious to the victim.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jul 2, 2014 8:08:15 GMT -5
My statement regarding this was: Some children are victims of child abuse, emotional, sexual, and physical, and do not suffer any measurable long term problems. In some cases the attempt to "help" these people causes damage. Others do suffer varying amounts of damage, both short and long term.There is no indication that my view is that very few children who experience child/adult sex suffer damages. So then your view is that most children in these circumstances suffer damages? My statement regarding this was: Some children are victims of child abuse, emotional, sexual, and physical, and do not suffer any measurable long term problems. In some cases the attempt to "help" these people causes damage. Others do suffer varying amounts of damage, both short and long term.There is no indication in my statement "that most children in these circumstances suffer damages".
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 2, 2014 8:10:02 GMT -5
So then your view is that most children in these circumstances suffer damages? My statement regarding this was: Some children are victims of child abuse, emotional, sexual, and physical, and do not suffer any measurable long term problems. In some cases the attempt to "help" these people causes damage. Others do suffer varying amounts of damage, both short and long term.There is no indication in my statement "that most children in these circumstances suffer damages". In your opinion, do the majority of victims of child sexual abuse suffer damages? Roughly, in your opinion, what is the percentage of children experiencing child sexual abuse suffer damages? What proportion would be short term damages, and what proportion would be long term damages?
|
|
|
Post by matisse on Jul 2, 2014 8:39:07 GMT -5
My statement regarding this was: Some children are victims of child abuse, emotional, sexual, and physical, and do not suffer any measurable long term problems. In some cases the attempt to "help" these people causes damage. Others do suffer varying amounts of damage, both short and long term.There is no indication in my statement "that most children in these circumstances suffer damages". In your opinion, do the majority of victims of child sexual abuse suffer damages? Roughly, in your opinion, what is the percentage of children experiencing child sexual abuse suffer damages? What proportion would be short term damages, and what proportion would be long term damages? Clearday, do you believe that all cases of child abuse are known (reported)? If you do, please explain how you can possibly know it. If not, why on earth would you ask someone to state the "percentage" of children experiencing child sexual abuse who suffer damages or "what proportion" would be short term damages, and "what proportion" would be long term damages? Why would you suggest anyone should know what represents a "majority" of an unknown number of victims of child sexual abuse? IMO, the word "some" is about as specific as one can get. If you speak in terms of "reported cases" of child sexual abuse, then you can begin to talk in terms of totals and percentages, although to do so responsibly, one must clearly define what is being counted as "child sexual abuse", define what constitutes "damage" and describe in detail the criteria used to "measure" the existence of "short term" and "long term" damages and also describe in detail the potential interfering factors outside of the abuse itself that may affect the emotional/psychological trajectory of a victim (e.g. the abuse victim's family blames the victim for the abuse or denies that the abuse ever happened). Without a carefully prepared set of definitions to go with statistics, IMO, you are wasting bandwidth.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jul 2, 2014 8:44:45 GMT -5
Just to be clear, here is what one of the researchers (Clancy) stated in an interview with Salon: SALON: One could argue that your claims could encourage child abusers — or convince them that what they’re doing isn’t wrong. How do you respond to that?
CLANCY: Forcefully! As I hope to have made clear in the book, sexual abuse is never OK. No matter what the circumstances are, or how it impacts the victims, sexual abuse is an atrocious, despicable crime. Just because it rarely physically or psychologically damages the child does not mean it is OK. Harmfulness is not the same thing as wrongfulness. And why is it wrong? Because children are incapable of consent.
Children do not understand the meaning or significance of sexual behavior. Adults know this, and thus they are taking advantage of innocent children — using their knowledge to manipulate children into providing sexual pleasure. Sick.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 2, 2014 9:06:33 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 2, 2014 9:09:09 GMT -5
Just to be clear, here is what one of the researchers (Clancy) stated in an interview with Salon: SALON: One could argue that your claims could encourage child abusers — or convince them that what they’re doing isn’t wrong. How do you respond to that?
CLANCY: Forcefully! As I hope to have made clear in the book, sexual abuse is never OK. No matter what the circumstances are, or how it impacts the victims, sexual abuse is an atrocious, despicable crime. Just because it rarely physically or psychologically damages the child does not mean it is OK. Harmfulness is not the same thing as wrongfulness. And why is it wrong? Because children are incapable of consent.
Children do not understand the meaning or significance of sexual behavior. Adults know this, and thus they are taking advantage of innocent children — using their knowledge to manipulate children into providing sexual pleasure. Sick. Do you agree with Clancy that it rarely psychologically damages a child?
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jul 2, 2014 9:16:33 GMT -5
In your opinion, do the majority of victims of child sexual abuse suffer damages? The majority of child abuse cases, sexual, emotional, and/or physical, go unreported so there is no metric that can be used to determine what number suffer damages. As pointed out in the research paper titled Impact of Sexual Abuse on Children: A Review and Synthesis of Recent Empirical Studies, The findings suggest the absence of any specific syndrome in children who have been sexually abused and no single traumatizing process. This would make it difficult to determine any reliable data regarding sexual abuse. And then there is the issue of the exact definition of sexual abuse.Roughly, what is the percentage of children who suffer child sexual abuse, both reported and unreported? When you say 'child sexual abuse' what is the scope of the abuse? Is it only abuse that involves contact? It is it only abuse that was discovered and/or reported? Is it only forceful sexual abuse? Abuse that is repeated and exists for a long period of time? Is it only cases of incest or cases that do not involve incest? It is well demonstrated that the environment that a child is raised in has a far greater impact on their development than cases of sexual abuse.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.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 2, 2014 9:32:00 GMT -5
In your opinion, do the majority of victims of child sexual abuse suffer damages? The majority of child abuse cases, sexual, emotional, and/or physical, go unreported so there is no metric that can be used to determine what number suffer damages. As pointed out in the research paper titled Impact of Sexual Abuse on Children: A Review and Synthesis of Recent Empirical Studies, The findings suggest the absence of any specific syndrome in children who have been sexually abused and no single traumatizing process. This would make it difficult to determine any reliable data regarding sexual abuse. And then there is the issue of the exact definition of sexual abuse.Roughly, what is the percentage of children who suffer child sexual abuse, both reported and unreported? When you say 'child sexual abuse' what is the scope of the abuse? Is it only abuse that involves contact? It is it only abuse that was discovered and/or reported? Is it only forceful sexual abuse? Abuse that is repeated and exists for a long period of time? Is it only cases of incest or cases that do not involve incest? It is well demonstrated that the environment that a child is raised in has a far greater impact on their development than cases of sexual abuse.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. Of the reported cases of child sexual abuse, do you have an opinion on how many of the children suffered short term or long term damages?
|
|
|
Post by matisse on Jul 2, 2014 9:34:04 GMT -5
I thought Rational answered you adequately many posts ago.
|
|
|
Post by jondough on Jul 2, 2014 9:38:00 GMT -5
Rational said:
This to me is a bit removed from reality.
Lets assume for a moment that things do go as Bert thinks they will, and it is no long "wrong" or illegal for an adult to have sex with a child.
This doesn't change anything for me. I will still continue to protect my child from the abuse.
The above statement indicates that if Rational takes his grandchildren to a country where this is accepted, that he will no longer protect them.
|
|
|
Post by matisse on Jul 2, 2014 9:41:58 GMT -5
Rational said:
The above statement indicates that if Rational takes his grandchildren to a country where this is accepted, that he will no longer protect them. Huh? To me, the above statement indicates that Rational believes child abuse is wrong no matter where in the world he is with his grandchildren, and that abuse of children by adults is wrong no matter what the consequences are for the child. This is the only interpretation I can come up after following Rational's recent comments on the topic. And by "recent comments" I do not mean to imply in any way that Rational has had something different to say in past discussions of the topic of child abuse, I'm just not up to reading through all 19,000+ posts he has made on TMB.
|
|