|
Post by rational on Mar 1, 2008 12:37:56 GMT -5
Back to the issue of an ex-worker, clearly identified as a sex offender while in the work but presently moved by the work to an unsuspecting environment in Saskatchewan -- with the information of his history of child abuse concealed from the countless young professing families that he has been placed in fellowship with. Clearly identified. Does this mean convicted in a court? Arrested? Or just the subject of rumors? If there is proof why would this person be a danger to anyone? Why didn't the victims, or their guardians, take their complaints to the authorities? Sexual abuse is a criminal charge. Why would the workers be involved in dealing with it at all? If you have proof why not write directly to someone that can take legal action?
|
|
Bonnie
Senior Member
Posts: 212
|
Post by Bonnie on Mar 1, 2008 15:14:35 GMT -5
Ok, Scott. Sit down. We will accept your word that it was all Juli and you were just there as an intimidating biker. Did you wear your leathers and bandanna to the meeting? And you have the gall to say that Lyle wasn't intimidated? My position is simple this: when Edgar wants to talk about abuse and correcting the problem, great. Go for it. Take action if you have good information. Just don't roll your failure into part of your campaign against my fellowship. I'm not claiming it is perfect. It is as perfect as the people who participate in it. Trust me when I say that I have known some pretty imperfect professing folks. Including one child abuser. He had a meeting in his home and was well respected by all. But when the truth came out, workers sat in the courtroom with his family (victimized his children) while he was sentenced for his crime. It was no secret. No orders to suppress information, omerta, or anything else. No one deliberately makes a wrong decision. We all make good decisions, but sometimes based on the wrong assumptions. Do you truly think people don't make wrong decisions? When someone knows something and just won't get involved I call that a wrong desicion. It is not a good decision to just say I can't be bothered, I don't want to have my name involved, or I don't want my church to get a bad name from this information. So I'll stick my head in the sand and let time slip by, and hope things will change on there own. I would call this a very bad decision. Kathy
|
|
|
Post by just wait on Mar 1, 2008 20:03:23 GMT -5
Sooner or later one of these hidden 'offenders' is going to abuse the child of an ex or a non-2x2 and those parents will sue every worker, elder and family that knew about the abuse but failed to report it. And those parents with either the right lawyer or enough money will give the 2x2 the same kind of attention the Catholics get. Once the 'cat is out of the bag' everyone will want in on the action.
|
|
|
Post by Information on Mar 2, 2008 0:37:27 GMT -5
Over a decade ago I belonged to a group formed with official US Government Federal approval. We were advised by Judge Advocate AND Attorney General's official representatives, that without either Legal Incorporation or Formal Articles of Organization, the misbehavior in any way of any particular individual involved with such a non-legally organized group, became the legal financial responsibility of all members involved. Such members will be established by court order using any and all the records of the group when identification becomes necessary. These were high powered legal experts who guided us at each step.
Because I was curious as to whether this applied to religious or other social organizations and not just paramilitary type existing as part of an official section of the US Coast Guard, I specifically asked if it did, thinking of the various groups existing without those forms of legality. I was told "most definitely, in example motorcycle organizations, parent teacher associations, as well as religious groups who identify closely with each other in group participation."
This meant to me that it would be just a matter of time until those actually "professing" would be sued over various violations of moral and social standards. In such a lawsuit, every "elder" and "convention owner" is particularly at risk, and such records in the groups possession anywhere would be subject to court review to determine where deep pockets might exist. This means Church lists, Convention lists, Worker lists, any known existence of group funds, etc.
However, as long as this is not known, nor not widely known, individual exposure is minimal risk. When it DOES become widely known, look for many drastic changes of such informal organizations which create the financial risk for ALL member involved.
That knowledge also changed my opinion regarding formal organization of any such group. I decided then and there that I would never again be counted as a member of any group without reading the articles of incorporation or organization of the group.
(A past District, Division, and Flotilla Officer of the US Coast Guard Auxiliary, and existing under the Department of Transportation during peace time, and the US Navy while the Country is conducting declared war)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 2, 2008 9:14:19 GMT -5
Information, very interesting and I don't doubt this is true. Any unincorporated group would be legally similar to a business partnership in which each partner is 100% liable for 100% of business obligations such as debt as well as other misbehaviour. Criminal misbehaviour would not likely become the liability of all partners unless it was established that other partners were knowledgeable of it.
I can certainly see that if we get a re-offense in known case such as in the SK case, that huge legal implications could follow. All F&Ws any near SK could potentially face a civil suit for damages, while those in leadership positions such as workers and elders could face criminal or quasi criminal charges. Almost everyone in a leadership position in SK and MB (all workers and most elders) know about this SK time bomb and are in danger of it blowing up in their faces.
One wonders how many other circumstances exist like this, where workers and senior friends know of molester who still lurk around the children of unsuspecting friends. It is not enough for the leading workers to have an offender leave the work, I highly doubt that the authorities will let the knowledgeable workers off the hook if there is a re-offense.
|
|
|
Post by money on Mar 2, 2008 9:59:27 GMT -5
Criminal misbehaviour would not likely become the liability of all partners unless it was established that other partners were knowledgeable of it. I disagree, today the rule of the day seems to be "those that knew OR SHOULD HAVE KNOWN." And in the US it seems that people will go after who ever has the most money reguardless of who is at fault. And by reading some of the other thread, there is money and there are many convention grounds.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 2, 2008 10:48:09 GMT -5
Holding 2x2 leadership legally responsible for sexual abuse issues is an extremely long shot in most legal systems that I am aware off -- and as far as I am concerned wouldn't do a lot to solve the problems that victims have ....
Few countries have a legal system so money focused as the US --- and even there, I doubt very much if there is much of a reasonable chance to "make the money worth it all".
Even simple admission of guilt by leadership is so extremely unlikely, that to me it is only a diversion of attention from the very simplest of issues "to share the information that is available with the folks that have a relevant need for it" ---- families with young children. If ordinary folks were aware of the risks for their families, instead of the daily propaganda spread within the group that brother workers 'represent God on the earth', and must be unconditionally trusted, -- the problem would basically take care of itself
|
|
|
Post by no name on Mar 2, 2008 11:03:15 GMT -5
It is true that if an offense goes unreported, the law can come down on people who had knowledge of the crime but chose to refrain from contacting the authorities. I'm not sure what the levels of punishment can be, and it also probably depends on the time factor issue. But still - knowing parties can be held responsible if they don't act on their information.
From a website that deals with the legal issues of child abuse/neglect:
Responsibility to report abuse also includes the workers.
|
|
|
Post by check on Mar 2, 2008 11:13:51 GMT -5
It is true that if an offense goes unreported, the law can come down on people who had knowledge of the crime but chose to refrain from contacting the authorities. I'm not sure what the levels of punishment can be, and it also probably depends on the time factor issue. But still - knowing parties can be held responsible if they don't act on their information. From a website that deals with the legal issues of child abuse/neglect: Responsibility to report abuse also includes the workers. Great post. Some days the TMB should be required reading for the workers.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 2, 2008 11:15:41 GMT -5
Of course I suppose that it could be a legal question in some legal systems, but I very much doubt that workers would be legally regarded as clergy in our system at least. --
The only possible legal angle in our Swedish court system (which is similar to much of Europe) would be to prove 'dependancy' which does carry a certain liability for reporting. But it is a long shot .... I am not sure it would be easy to legally prove even who the responsible worker in the different areas was.
|
|
|
Post by Brick on Mar 2, 2008 20:04:28 GMT -5
Do you truly think people don't make wrong decisions? When someone knows something and just won't get involved I call that a wrong desicion. It is not a good decision to just say I can't be bothered, I don't want to have my name involved, or I don't want my church to get a bad name from this information. So I'll stick my head in the sand and let time slip by, and hope things will change on there own. I would call this a very bad decision. This all done both after the fact and from a different perspective than the person making the decision. Think of it like this: is committing a crime a bad decision? To the massive amount of people in the prisons of the world, it was not at the time. At the time, it was the most logical thing to do. Now that they are behind bars, I'm sure that looks like a bad decision. But the truth of the matter is that it was a GOOD decision based on their priorities, knowledge, experience, and perspective. It may not have been a good decision for their victim, but that is a completely different perspective. So for many, burying their head in the sand is perfectly logical choice. Until it is their child, but then, they have a different perspective. The real challenge is to heighten awareness of the abuse problem so people can mentally go through the scenario of having their own child abused in order to sensitize them to those who already are victims of abuse.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 3, 2008 8:01:15 GMT -5
The real challenge is to heighten awareness of the abuse problem so people can mentally go through the scenario of having their own child abused in order to sensitize them to those who already are victims of abuse. I am in one hundred procent agreement. Awareness will protect children better than the legal system (not meaning any slight to the legal system), and like you said it will also promote understanding and compassion for those already affected.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 3, 2008 8:05:50 GMT -5
So for many, burying their head in the sand is perfectly logical choice. Until it is their child, but then, they have a different perspective. The real challenge is to heighten awareness of the abuse problem so people can mentally go through the scenario of having their own child abused in order to sensitize them to those who already are victims of abuse. Excellent point. This may be another part of the explanation of why workers are so reluctant to bring these problems to the light. They have buried the idea of having their own children and cannot imagine it, hence more empathy for the perpetrator than for the victim.
|
|
|
Post by friend1 on Mar 3, 2008 10:00:19 GMT -5
In my reading of the local newspaper, the US has over one percent of the population is already incarcerated for various reasons. Jails and prisons are so grossly over crowded that the legal system is releasing sex offenders early in their sentences back to live into whatever general neighborhood is convenient.
This is done with certain stipulations and an identifying blurb in the local newspaper. However these folks are quite mobile and break the requirements placed upon them regularly. Actually, they are almost required to go underground because they need to work to live, and have a hard time finding a job in an area where their picture has been pasted in the local news.
So the US government isn't much more effective than the fellowship in dealing with these people. As for myself, I don't have the faintest idea of what to do either at the worker/government level.
When I was a youngster, there were on two occasions, workers that my buddies and I just didn't like. We couldn't explain specifically what it was, but we just stayed clear of them. Guess what? Both have left the work with rumors circulating about some sexual impropriety. I have no idea what exactly took place, but I see each regularly and my guard is up a bit, even though we're old white haired guys.
So evidently there was some unwritten code of normal human demeanor that was placed in us by our parents and/or experience, perhaps at school, that warned us about such. At the time we successfully walked the fine balance of being respectful but not allowing a close relationship.
So maybe that is the best antidote to be very clear to children what is and what isn't an appropriate relationship. The problem is parents are too busy with providing the expected material and social support for their kids to get opportunity to convey such attitudes. So some will still fall through the cracks.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 3, 2008 12:38:32 GMT -5
In my reading of the local newspaper, the US has over one percent of the population is already incarcerated for various reasons. Jails and prisons are so grossly over crowded that the legal system is releasing sex offenders early in their sentences back to live into whatever general neighborhood is convenient. This is done with certain stipulations and an identifying blurb in the local newspaper. However these folks are quite mobile and break the requirements placed upon them regularly. Actually, they are almost required to go underground because they need to work to live, and have a hard time finding a job in an area where their picture has been pasted in the local news. So the US government isn't much more effective than the fellowship in dealing with these people. As for myself, I don't have the faintest idea of what to do either at the worker/government level. When I was a youngster, there were on two occasions, workers that my buddies and I just didn't like. We couldn't explain specifically what it was, but we just stayed clear of them. Guess what? Both have left the work with rumors circulating about some sexual impropriety. I have no idea what exactly took place, but I see each regularly and my guard is up a bit, even though we're old white haired guys. So evidently there was some unwritten code of normal human demeanor that was placed in us by our parents and/or experience, perhaps at school, that warned us about such. At the time we successfully walked the fine balance of being respectful but not allowing a close relationship. So maybe that is the best antidote to be very clear to children what is and what isn't an appropriate relationship. The problem is parents are too busy with providing the expected material and social support for their kids to get opportunity to convey such attitudes. So some will still fall through the cracks. Good practical post friend1. We do have to live with the reality that there will be convicted molesters on the loose. Not everyone is fortunate enough to have the antennae that you had with those workers. So, perhaps the real defense against these offenders is information. "To be forewarned is to be forearmed". Even today those white haired old white men could be a danger because no one knows anything except vague rumours. What is necessary is that society in general knows about these people. Most of them are not violent and not dangerous amongst knowledgeable people. It's only those who are in the dark who can be deceived into molestation.
|
|
|
Post by Information on Mar 3, 2008 15:58:24 GMT -5
INDEED, What I post is not "legal advise." Nonetheless the content of my posts to this thread are worth considering anyway for anyone to even learn what to ask their good Civil Law attorney. Certainly what I share here does not apply to any Country other than the USA, for I only know what I have been told and taught as being applicable to everyone in this country according to Civil Federal and State Statute.
It is foolish for anyone to dismiss as untrue or devalue any of what I post now, or have posted previously. I was not referring to any Federal or State Criminal law. I WAS referring to the Civil laws and merely relaying what some of the very best legal minds at that time in the entire US told me outright. As I was charged with writing the by-laws of a Flotilla, to be reviewed by four levels of command for any change before being sent to a JAG attorney before being enacted, it was essential for me to learn both criminal and civil law involved in ruling such an unincorporated organization as a "Flotilla."
It should be noted that I was required to attend, study, and pass an extensive course on these topics with a perfect or near perfect grade before I could proceed with the said "by-laws." Those of us attending from across the nation were very fortunate in being selected by others, and appointed by our Commander to first attend and then correctly establish the by-laws for local flotillas without them or with poorly written by-laws..
In my post above, I was in no way referring to "US Criminal Law," rather "US Civil Law." Criminal Law goes by "reasonable doubt" standard. Civil Law requires only "preponderance of evidence." Recorded Articles of Incorporation, or group By-laws limit civil financial responsibility. However, since these posts are not those of a licensed practitioner of Law, they can only relay information as I know it was relayed to me by some of the best legal minds (and licensed lawyers) in the entire United States of America.
US Citizens, or non-citizens joining US groups within the USA, need to research a member's position in any formed group which has special distinction given to its people or members and establishing a membership list (or church list) of those participating in it. They need to read Articles of Incorporation or the By-laws of the group if not incorporated. In the absence of such, I am quite certain that any good "Civil Law" lawyer would confirm they should NOT become a member of any group having neither. . . Ignorance of facts and laws will not absolve someone of their responsibilities as a member of such groups without by-laws or articles of incorporation. Go ask a good civil attorney before dismissing what has been posted here, and get a professional (written) rather than a personal opinion on the matter. I accept that I have a "personal opinion" about this topic, based on some vary good professional legal opinions which are still found somewhere in my file cabinets.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 4, 2008 4:47:45 GMT -5
I don't think understanding the American law system is any prerequisit to partaking of, and showing the Christian spirit to those close to us. To me it is rather basic moral principle to do the little we can to protect the children arround us (both our own and others arround us) from the life destroying capacity of sexual abuse.
The doctrine that faithfulness to God can be measured by the unquestioning trust for 2x2 appointed workers as the highest representatives of God on the earth -- opens up the door for the kind of ugly abuse that this thread is all about.
|
|
|
Post by Over Reacting on Mar 4, 2008 18:14:39 GMT -5
I don't think understanding the American law system is any prerequisit to partaking of, and showing the Christian spirit to those close to us. To me it is rather basic moral principle to do the little we can to protect the children arround us (both our own and others arround us) from the life destroying capacity of sexual abuse. No one thinks sexual abuse of children is a good thing. It is not, however, any more "life destroying" than any other type of abuse. Possibly the worst thing about sexual abuse is the hoopla that is made about it. There is no reason to believe that in the hierarchy of abuse that sexual abuse is worse, for example, than physical abuse.
|
|
|
Post by Oh las on Mar 4, 2008 19:29:41 GMT -5
I know for myself I saw threw most stuff after leaving the group Most stuff i never knew when professing..I did however believe William Irvine was founder even thou my elder refuited it..I just didn't have all the info on him..that was about 3 yrs of professing towards last[/quote You are in a completely different world as far as this discussion is concerned, you are speaking out of context, no connection at all.
|
|
|
Post by kneed too on Mar 4, 2008 20:14:12 GMT -5
I know for myself I saw threw most stuff after leaving the group Most stuff i never knew when professing..I did however believe William Irvine was founder even thou my elder refuited it..I just didn't have all the info on him..that was about 3 yrs of professing towards last[/quote You are in a completely different world as far as this discussion is concerned, you are speaking out of context, no connection at all. I should put you over my knee!
|
|
|
Post by Brick on Mar 5, 2008 16:42:21 GMT -5
There is no reason to believe that in the hierarchy of abuse that sexual abuse is worse, for example, than physical abuse. I have to disagree with that. Regular physical abuse does not require the cooperation of the child. In fact, most children might make quite audible protests when being physically abused. I know that I did when it happened to me. The problem with the sexual abuse is that the pain of it may never go away because it is the pain of guilt. The knowledge that in many instances, the child actually cooperated with the predator and conspired with them to keep the abuse a secret. Of course they can't be held accountable for it. They were only a child and the predator probably was someone whose judgment was trusted and respected. WE don't hold it against them, but you can't simply tell a person to "get over it. It wasn't your fault." That will happen when it happens and often requires years of therapy. My physical abuse was over as soon as the bruises healed. I know that it is not so simple for many, but I think typically, the effects of physical abuse are much more short lived.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2008 17:12:02 GMT -5
There is no reason to believe that in the hierarchy of abuse that sexual abuse is worse, for example, than physical abuse. I have to disagree with that. Regular physical abuse does not require the cooperation of the child. In fact, most children might make quite audible protests when being physically abused. I know that I did when it happened to me. The problem with the sexual abuse is that the pain of it may never go away because it is the pain of guilt. The knowledge that in many instances, the child actually cooperated with the predator and conspired with them to keep the abuse a secret. Of course they can't be held accountable for it. They were only a child and the predator probably was someone whose judgment was trusted and respected. WE don't hold it against them, but you can't simply tell a person to "get over it. It wasn't your fault." That will happen when it happens and often requires years of therapy. My physical abuse was over as soon as the bruises healed. I know that it is not so simple for many, but I think typically, the effects of physical abuse are much more short lived. Good post Brick. While I have never been a victim of sexual abuse, I do believe that the negative effects run deeper and longer than for physical abuse. I really didn't suffer much physical abuse either, but I was able to shrug off any whuppings fairly easily. Physical abuse seems to be a simpler proposition and it is clear even to children except for very young ones that it is wrong. Because of that, they are better able to come to grips with it. Sexual abuse is much much more devious and strikes deeply because of the confusion, shame and guilt it causes. Plus, sexual victims are typically very isolated whereas physical abuse victims are more likely to verbalize it to someone sooner.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Mar 5, 2008 17:44:40 GMT -5
There is no reason to believe that in the hierarchy of abuse that sexual abuse is worse, for example, than physical abuse. I have to disagree with that. Regular physical abuse does not require the cooperation of the child. In fact, most children might make quite audible protests when being physically abused. I know that I did when it happened to me. The problem with the sexual abuse is that the pain of it may never go away because it is the pain of guilt. The knowledge that in many instances, the child actually cooperated with the predator and conspired with them to keep the abuse a secret. Of course they can't be held accountable for it. They were only a child and the predator probably was someone whose judgment was trusted and respected. WE don't hold it against them, but you can't simply tell a person to "get over it. It wasn't your fault." That will happen when it happens and often requires years of therapy. My physical abuse was over as soon as the bruises healed. I know that it is not so simple for many, but I think typically, the effects of physical abuse are much more short lived. Let's look at one idea at a time. Considering the abuse of young children, 2-12 years old, why is there guilt when the abuse is sexual as opposed to when the abuse is of a non-sexual nature?
|
|
|
Post by Brick on Mar 5, 2008 17:58:37 GMT -5
The problem with the sexual abuse is that the pain of it may never go away because it is the pain of guilt. The knowledge that in many instances, the child actually cooperated with the predator and conspired with them to keep the abuse a secret. Of course they can't be held accountable for it. They were only a child and the predator probably was someone whose judgment was trusted and respected. WE don't hold it against them, but you can't simply tell a person to "get over it. It wasn't your fault." That will happen when it happens and often requires years of therapy.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2008 20:58:23 GMT -5
I have to disagree with that. Regular physical abuse does not require the cooperation of the child. In fact, most children might make quite audible protests when being physically abused. I know that I did when it happened to me. The problem with the sexual abuse is that the pain of it may never go away because it is the pain of guilt. The knowledge that in many instances, the child actually cooperated with the predator and conspired with them to keep the abuse a secret. Of course they can't be held accountable for it. They were only a child and the predator probably was someone whose judgment was trusted and respected. WE don't hold it against them, but you can't simply tell a person to "get over it. It wasn't your fault." That will happen when it happens and often requires years of therapy. My physical abuse was over as soon as the bruises healed. I know that it is not so simple for many, but I think typically, the effects of physical abuse are much more short lived. Let's look at one idea at a time. Considering the abuse of young children, 2-12 years old, why is there guilt when the abuse is sexual as opposed to when the abuse is of a non-sexual nature? Rational, I offered a possible explanation for that in my previous post. Young children are better able to recognize physical abuse as wrong more clearly than sexual abuse. With physical abuse, they are more likely to react negatively (which is natural) and take positive steps to recover. Sexual abuse is so devious, it is presented as good when deep inside they sense it is evil but cannot reconcile the two. After all, most sexual abuse victims do not experience physical pain which is a very clear indicator of abuse to the human mind.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Mar 5, 2008 22:10:06 GMT -5
Rational, I offered a possible explanation for that in my previous post. Young children are better able to recognize physical abuse as wrong more clearly than sexual abuse. With physical abuse, they are more likely to react negatively (which is natural) and take positive steps to recover. Sexual abuse is so devious, it is presented as good when deep inside they sense it is evil but cannot reconcile the two. After all, most sexual abuse victims do not experience physical pain which is a very clear indicator of abuse to the human mind. Are you suggesting that children have a innate sense of guilt regarding sexual abuse and not other types of abuse? I am suggesting that the source of the guilt lies with the adults. Brick wrote: Regular physical abuse does not require the cooperation of the child. In fact, most children might make quite audible protests when being physically abused. I know that I did when it happened to me. The problem with the sexual abuse is that the pain of it may never go away because it is the pain of guilt. The knowledge that in many instances, the child actually cooperated with the predator and conspired with them to keep the abuse a secret. Of course they can't be held accountable for it. They were only a child and the predator probably was someone whose judgment was trusted and respected. WE don't hold it against them, but you can't simply tell a person to "get over it. It wasn't your fault." There are other types of abuse. Emotional and neglect, just to name two. And as far as audible protests, it depends on the situation much more than on the type of abuse. Of course they cannot be held accountable so why would they feel any sense of guilt on their own? If you read the posts here you can get a sense of the anger and emotional baggage the adults bring to the table when the abuse is sexual.
|
|
|
Post by wuoh on Mar 5, 2008 22:54:52 GMT -5
This was definitely written by Rational: No one thinks sexual abuse of children is a good thing. It is not, however, any more "life destroying" than any other type of abuse. Possibly the worst thing about sexual abuse is the hoopla that is made about it. There is no reason to believe that in the hierarchy of abuse that sexual abuse is worse, for example, than physical abuse. Rational, I truly hope that no one that you know will ever come to you for help if he or she ever finds themselves being sexually abused. You are the kind of person who has no empathy and will make the victim feel worse rather than letting them know that you care and will be there for them. May God lead a victim to the right people to receive help.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 6, 2008 0:10:37 GMT -5
Rational, I offered a possible explanation for that in my previous post. Young children are better able to recognize physical abuse as wrong more clearly than sexual abuse. With physical abuse, they are more likely to react negatively (which is natural) and take positive steps to recover. Sexual abuse is so devious, it is presented as good when deep inside they sense it is evil but cannot reconcile the two. After all, most sexual abuse victims do not experience physical pain which is a very clear indicator of abuse to the human mind. Are you suggesting that children have a innate sense of guilt regarding sexual abuse and not other types of abuse? I am suggesting that the source of the guilt lies with the adults. Brick wrote: Regular physical abuse does not require the cooperation of the child. In fact, most children might make quite audible protests when being physically abused. I know that I did when it happened to me. The problem with the sexual abuse is that the pain of it may never go away because it is the pain of guilt. The knowledge that in many instances, the child actually cooperated with the predator and conspired with them to keep the abuse a secret. Of course they can't be held accountable for it. They were only a child and the predator probably was someone whose judgment was trusted and respected. WE don't hold it against them, but you can't simply tell a person to "get over it. It wasn't your fault." There are other types of abuse. Emotional and neglect, just to name two. And as far as audible protests, it depends on the situation much more than on the type of abuse. Of course they cannot be held accountable so why would they feel any sense of guilt on their own? If you read the posts here you can get a sense of the anger and emotional baggage the adults bring to the table when the abuse is sexual. Not at all. I am suggesting that they have an innate sense of wrong in both cases, but the insidiousness of sexual abuse reaches deep under and causes more inner conflict and confusion. With other forms of abuse it's more clearcut for them, and they react better to protect themselves.
|
|