|
|
Post by snow on Jul 26, 2013 17:49:25 GMT -5
If I had it to do all over again I would have reported him. I feel I let other women down when I might have been able to stop him from doing it again. Live and learn.
|
|
|
|
Post by faune on Jul 26, 2013 20:49:49 GMT -5
Here's an interesting article entitled, "Myths and Misconception about Sex Offenders." I felt it deserved to be entered into this discussion to get a realistic picture of what we are dealing with within society as a whole. oregonsatf.org/about/satf-membership/offender-management-committee/myths-and-misconceptions-about-sex-offenders/ Also, here is another article that came to my attention today that covers the complete spectrum of CSA and sexual assault within America ~ it's not just some isolated cases within some church groups, but the schools and other groups that deal with young children and youth. It's actually starting to resemble something like an epidemic within America due to so many cases coming to the public attention recently which were covered up before. However, the actual numbers convey that its more the horrific nature of CSA within America than the actual numbers of abuse cases. The news media around this elementary school in Los Angeles is just one example of how one person's perverted behavior can affect the reputation of a whole school system due to not being exposed sooner. I'm sure the same premise applies to churches as well where cases are covered-up and go unreported over a period of time until they finally "hit the fan." People in authority finally realized they were dealing with a "hot potato" and quickly tossed it from one person to another to get the spotlight off of the institution where these offenses occurred.
truth-out.org/news/item/7287-codes-of-silence-and-child-abuse-coverups-the-sick-underbelly-of-institutions-in-the-us Codes of Silence and Child Abuse Cover-Ups: The Sick Underbelly of Institutions in the US
Sunday, 25 March 2012 09:33 By Nathalia Jaramillo, Truthout | News Analysis
|
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jul 26, 2013 22:48:27 GMT -5
It was a side discussion regarding the fact that there is hyperfocus on sexual abuse while there is hypofocus on other types of abuse. Abuse does not exist in a vacuum. Pointing out additional problems does not minimize CSA but puts it into perspective. I don't mind the discussion but I do mind being misquoted. I never have called child sexual abuse minor. I said that sexual abuse was a minor part of reported abuse. And, for those who have difficulty reading text, I posted a picture. I was both slapped and belted. Belted much more often than slapped, so I guess I'm part of the 90% Then I guess you would fall into that category. The fact you claim that you have not suffered long term negative effects does make the point that all children who are abused do not suffer long term effects, no matter what type of abuse they suffer. This is a very interesting comparison. I'm not sure I would have put these two together. As I stated, I could be wrong, but common sense would tell me that CSA has a very high percentage of lasting affects. And as I posted, it seems that common sense does not always carry the day. Sounds good. But doesn't hyperfocusing on one minimize the other? No, but calling one "minor" does In a town there are two murders. In case "A", a white youth shoots a black youth. In case "B", a black youth shoots a white youth. The following day 85% of the police force is looking for the black shooter, the mayor holds a press conference every hour to update the press on the status of the hunt for the black shooter. The story is page one. There is 24 hour news coverage by the local TV station, with helicopters and on scene reporters. A single patrolwoman reads a written statement about the hunt for the white shooter. The story is covered on page 11 below the fold without photos. Hyperfocusing on one does minimize the other. If someone had called CSA minor that would also have minimized it but I can't find a post where that happened. Only misquotes. Perhaps you could point it out. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2013 3:35:52 GMT -5
Rat, are you saying that CSA is getting the focus at the expense of other types of abuse? That we should not be talking about CSA in isolation from all types of abuses? I'll try to give my reasons why my focus is on CSA only at the moment with regard to the fellowship:
1) CSA is not committed only by one's parents, but also by trusted church members, including workers. It is a church issue in a greater sense than parental discipline gone bad. It potentially affects all the children in the fellowship because it can be committed by anyone in the fellowship, not just one's parents. CSA committed by friends and workers is misuse of trust placed in them they have because of their place in the church, not in the family, which makes it a church issue much more than inappropriate parental discipline.
2) Someone who has abused their own children verbally and/or physically is not a threat to other children in the fellowship, unlike someone who has abused their children sexually. Someone who has abused their own children verbally and/or physically is not likely to do the same to other children, which is why they don't get legal restrictions to being around children, and the other way around - somebody who has abused their own children sexually is likely to do the same to other children, which makes it a church issue.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2013 4:27:38 GMT -5
Whilst I see nothing wrong in the context of the F&W's sect in addressing/discussing CSA issues in separation from other abuse forms, it should not, in my opinion, be to the exclusion of the other forms of abuse which can and do occur within the sect.
Rat's arguments are largely right in the context of general society; e.g. c.90% physical/neglect abuse and c.10% CSA. However that is a comparison of a composition of the various classes of society and groups, etc, which all go into the melting pot. The percentages of abuse will not extend equally throughout the classes or society groups, organisations and so on, but are an overall result; e.g. neglect cases will largely be found amongst the lower or lowest classes. Few will be amongst the upper classes.
The F&W's sect, or at least from the emerging details, gives us some indication of the different levels found in different groups. Putting spiritual abuse aside, we are seeing that by far the main abuse form amongst "male" workers is in fact CSA. This is very consistent with the environment of their lifestyle. However, incidents of physical abuse and neglect against children committed by the workers appears to be very few indeed and again this is consistent with their lifestyle and lack of responsibilities in bringing up children etc.
On the other hand, there are more than a few testimonies revealing CSA, physical abuse and neglect amongst the lay fellowship, though this is a largely unknown quantity.
If we are to consider the workers only, then our main concern is indeed CSA. However, it does not stop there. Much has been made in recent times about the workers being legally mandated reporters in many states and in some countries. The concept of mandated reporting is not something that I welcome or particularly agree with, but nevertheless it is the law and the workers are bound by wherever it applies to them.
Most, if not all mandatory reporting relates to ALL forms of child abuse. Therefore we cannot, at least in the areas where MR applies, limit our scope to CSA only, simply because the workers are legally bound to report all forms of child abuse (csa, physical, neglect etc) that they suspect, not just CSA committed by fellow workers. If they are in a home, or see a child, whom they suspect has been physically abused or suffering from neglect, they must report it. So mandatory reporting binds the workers to all forms of child abuse wherever the law applies to the workers. Workers therefore not only need to be aware of CSA but every other form of abuse which a child may be a victim of.
Yes, in considering the workers, have your focus on CSA, but don't be blinkered by it. A fair level of awareness must be given to other forms of child abuse. A worker well clued up on CSA may still fall foul of the law, through ignorance, if he or she fails to report a case of physical abuse or neglect that they are aware of.
|
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Jul 27, 2013 9:35:23 GMT -5
Not only leaving our minds at the door before opening and closing it and self indoctrinating ourselves in being what we perceive what those in power want us to be like...we suffered improper scriptural definitions, etc to become our own interpretations as well. When I read John 1, I am totally amazed at what stupidity runs rampant in the 2x2's to not understand what the beloved apostle of Jesus is saying there.....and of course those who want to defend their continued ineptness will jump to the Johanna Comma for defense when it has little to do with John 1......I tend to think I should follow what John has supposedly left on record for us in regards to what and who Jesus was and is, since he is the only apostle who did not suffer untimely death and plus he was the Bridegroom's best friend, even in his writings of REvelations! If he isn't to be believed, then we might as well chuck the whole bible, IMO! ~ I feel we all get a little "conditioning" in what we believe to be true, regardless of the church we attend? However, some groups carry things a little farther in their requirements and conditions for membership than others in pertaining to external appearances, IMO? However, its the content of what constitutes the gospel message regarding Jesus that is really important and gets changed when legalism and traditions become the norm and change the real focus on Jesus and His desire for humanity? On this Board I have seen some professing folks who are definitely more open to others and not so exclusive by the content of their postings. They also come across as be kind and graceful towards others. I guess I saw so much of the other side of the coin growing up that my own impressions may be tainted? I'm glad some changes have come since my departure in 1995 and I hope they progressively increase for those who remain within the faith, including a better understanding of the real gospel message Jesus came to present to the world. Here's the best answer I could find to convey what I mean by "the real gospel message" that is of primary importance that we understand in order to put our trust in Jesus ~ and not some religious system within the world. www.gotquestions.org/true-gospel.htmlAnd yet, Faune, we read not too many months ago of a worker who has been considered one of the more liberal and up to snuf overseers, still hanging to the 2 tenets of faith that the fellowship is built on and holds to their chests as being the ONLY tenets of faith they will preach or defend and that was the celibate itinerant 2x2 ministry and meetings in the home. So all of the rest of life's trappings are still held individually by the workers...some pushing for constancy in the external robes and looks of faith, while others are seeking to release some of that prison.... |
|
|
|
Post by jondough on Jul 27, 2013 9:42:21 GMT -5
I don't mind the discussion but I do mind being misquoted. I never have called child sexual abuse minor. I said that sexual abuse was a minor part of reported abuse. And, for those who have difficulty reading text, I posted a picture. Here is what you said exactly; You love to lump everything into the same category. So now your lumping my being spanked with a belt in the same category as sexual abuse. Lets try to throw in some common sense. But it sure helps. You have made a good point...my point. The problem is not the fact that there was priority placed on the black shooter. The problem was that there was not enough priority placed on the white shooter. It was minimized to the point of un-important. There was no reason to minimize the importance of finding the black shooter...they both should be priority. They both should have been front page. Do you think the white shooter should have been moved to the front page, and the black shooter to page 11, or 6 or 2 ? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2013 10:03:46 GMT -5
Rat, are you saying that CSA is getting the focus at the expense of other types of abuse? That we should not be talking about CSA in isolation from all types of abuses? I'll try to give my reasons why my focus is on CSA only at the moment with regard to the fellowship: 1) CSA is not committed only by one's parents, but also by trusted church members, including workers. It is a church issue in a greater sense than parental discipline gone bad. It potentially affects all the children in the fellowship because it can be committed by anyone in the fellowship, not just one's parents. CSA committed by friends and workers is misuse of trust placed in them they have because of their place in the church, not in the family, which makes it a church issue much more than inappropriate parental discipline. 2) Someone who has abused their own children verbally and/or physically is not a threat to other children in the fellowship, unlike someone who has abused their children sexually. Someone who has abused their own children verbally and/or physically is not likely to do the same to other children, which is why they don't get legal restrictions to being around children, and the other way around - somebody who has abused their own children sexually is likely to do the same to other children, which makes it a church issue. Another reason CSA gets focus on a 2x2 discussion site is that there are several peculiar aspects to 2x2ism that lends itself to higher risk of CSA. Other types of abuse within 2x2ism (other than emotional/spiritual abuse), seem to have lower risks within 2x2ism. One of the most frequent forms of abuse is neglect and the 2x2 system, if anything, is a place where risk of neglect is actually considerably lower than the general population. In fact, the opposite is likely to be true where children are more likely to be micromanaged by parents rather than suffer neglect. Similarly with physical abuse, because a basic fundamental of 2x2ism is pacifism (as seen in the non-combat policy in military service), so physical violence is proactively shunned in 2x2ism so risk of physical abuse is much lower than the general population. So to summarize, what I am suggesting is that the general population statistics do not apply to 2x2ism from what I have seen in my years of observation. We talk about CSA because there is a considerable amount of it relative to other forms. We don't talk about neglect because there is very little of it, and emotional abuse from overmanaging children is more frequent. We don't talk about broken ribs and smashed faces because there is very little of it. Again, from my observations of many decades, the only other significant abuse among 2x2's which can be closely attributed to the characteristics of 2x2ism is emotional(spiritual) abuse. If we can resolve spiritual abuse and CSA among 2x2ism, abuse of all kinds would be minimal, and starkly less than the general population. 2x2ism simply does not present the same abuse risk profile as the general population. Its unique mix of characteristics makes it a riskier place for two types of abuse, and a safer place for the others. To try to overlay the general population template on the 2x2 population is like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole.....the two are quite different. |
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jul 27, 2013 12:11:10 GMT -5
And, reading the text, it says that sexual abuse is a minor part of abuse. Not that sexual abuse a minor type of abuse. Sexual abuse and physical abuse are noth types of abuse. This should not be news to anyone. There are definition of abuse as well as the different types of abuse. I did not create the definitions. But I am using them because they are the commonly used definitions. If you want to apply a new definition please let readers know so everyone is on the same page. The problem is the hyper focus on sexual abuse while little or no focus on the more common types of abuse. I guess you could also say (which I did) that there is hypofocus on the more common non-sexual types of abuse. Earlier you said: The story about the black shooter was not minimized. It simply wasn't focused on. And by not focusing on it the situation was minimized. Of course, has they focused on the black shooter more, as I am suggestion people focus on the non-sexual abuse more, it would not have been minimized. But that was about the most twisted response I have seen! I say that "A" is higher than "B" and your response is that I was incorrect - "B" was just lower than "A"??? |
|
|
|
Post by findingtruth on Jul 27, 2013 15:54:47 GMT -5
Rat, are you saying that CSA is getting the focus at the expense of other types of abuse? That we should not be talking about CSA in isolation from all types of abuses? I'll try to give my reasons why my focus is on CSA only at the moment with regard to the fellowship: 1) CSA is not committed only by one's parents, but also by trusted church members, including workers. It is a church issue in a greater sense than parental discipline gone bad. It potentially affects all the children in the fellowship because it can be committed by anyone in the fellowship, not just one's parents. CSA committed by friends and workers is misuse of trust placed in them they have because of their place in the church, not in the family, which makes it a church issue much more than inappropriate parental discipline. 2) Someone who has abused their own children verbally and/or physically is not a threat to other children in the fellowship, unlike someone who has abused their children sexually. Someone who has abused their own children verbally and/or physically is not likely to do the same to other children, which is why they don't get legal restrictions to being around children, and the other way around - somebody who has abused their own children sexually is likely to do the same to other children, which makes it a church issue. Another reason CSA gets focus on a 2x2 discussion site is that there are several peculiar aspects to 2x2ism that lends itself to higher risk of CSA. Other types of abuse within 2x2ism (other than emotional/spiritual abuse), seem to have lower risks within 2x2ism. One of the most frequent forms of abuse is neglect and the 2x2 system, if anything, is a place where risk of neglect is actually considerably lower than the general population. In fact, the opposite is likely to be true where children are more likely to be micromanaged by parents rather than suffer neglect. Similarly with physical abuse, because a basic fundamental of 2x2ism is pacifism (as seen in the non-combat policy in military service), so physical violence is proactively shunned in 2x2ism so risk of physical abuse is much lower than the general population. So to summarize, what I am suggesting is that the general population statistics do not apply to 2x2ism from what I have seen in my years of observation. We talk about CSA because there is a considerable amount of it relative to other forms. We don't talk about neglect because there is very little of it, and emotional abuse from overmanaging children is more frequent. We don't talk about broken ribs and smashed faces because there is very little of it. Again, from my observations of many decades, the only other significant abuse among 2x2's which can be closely attributed to the characteristics of 2x2ism is emotional(spiritual) abuse. If we can resolve spiritual abuse and CSA among 2x2ism, abuse of all kinds would be minimal, and starkly less than the general population. 2x2ism simply does not present the same abuse risk profile as the general population. Its unique mix of characteristics makes it a riskier place for two types of abuse, and a safer place for the others. To try to overlay the general population template on the 2x2 population is like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole.....the two are quite different. You indicate that 2x2ism does not present the same abuse risk profile as the general population due to its unique mix of characteristics. Is it possible that our personal experiences might cause us to see things differently? Based on your previous posts it appears that you've had a fairly easy life, free of family friction and obvious abuse. I might be able to form the same conclusions based on my immediate family. We are a close family and I have very pleasant childhood memories. I didn't grow up in the fellowship so am quite familiar with other churches. So I can say without hesitation that the same abuse issues exist in the 2x2 fellowship that exist in the general population (AKA outsiders). I've witnessed marital infidelity, physical abuse, alcoholism, drug abuse, child abuse, verbal abuse, dishonesty, illegal behavior and more - all inside the 2x2 fellowship. At the same time there are some very nice people (and workers) in the system. I also know many of the finest folks you would want to meet outside of the fellowship. What forms of abuse might be more prevalent outside of the fellowship? And what mix of characteristics make it a riskier place? My first guess is that some would say "the workers spend nights in homes where children are present. But anyone capable of the repulsive behavior of CSA does not need the opportunity to stay in a home. They can perform these sick deeds whenever and wherever the opportunity presents itself. Spiritual abuse is not exclusive to the 2x2 fellowship. It happens in countless other religious groups. In my opinion believing that the 2x2 population has a different basic human nature than the general population is an illusion. The enemy of the soul has no preferences and will do its ugly work regardless of religious choice. These are just my thoughts. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2013 16:29:04 GMT -5
FT five years ago CSA within the worker section of the F&W's sect would have been considered a rarity. Over the last 3-4 years the focus has been on the workers and more and more cases of CSA and sexual immorality have surfaced, some going back many years. So far the remainder of the fellowship is a largely unknown quantity. However, there are testimonies out there indicating such things as you state, but to what extent I do not know. It is still very much a hidden thing. If the focus was on that part of the sect then who knows what may or may not surface.
One thing about abuses, especially in family settings, is that they can remain hidden virtually forever as family members seek to cover things up. Many families that you would think that butter wouldn't melt in their mouths, would surprise you (generally speaking, not YOU specifically.
People should keep in mind that long after society had binned corporal punishment for children, the workers were still adhering to it as a sound Biblical doctrine and many a sermon was directed at "spare the rod and spoil the child!"
I can well remember sermons at convention (early 90s?) where it was preached about "breaking the will of a child." Children were likened to a young foal whose will needed to be broken before it could be led according to the Master's will!" Parents were advised to break their childrens' will early in life. This was lapped up eagerly by a spiritually parched audience. Coming from the workers, this was God's voice himself. Imagine the havoc such garbage could wreak amongst weaker families?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2013 16:48:11 GMT -5
Another reason CSA gets focus on a 2x2 discussion site is that there are several peculiar aspects to 2x2ism that lends itself to higher risk of CSA. Other types of abuse within 2x2ism (other than emotional/spiritual abuse), seem to have lower risks within 2x2ism. One of the most frequent forms of abuse is neglect and the 2x2 system, if anything, is a place where risk of neglect is actually considerably lower than the general population. In fact, the opposite is likely to be true where children are more likely to be micromanaged by parents rather than suffer neglect. Similarly with physical abuse, because a basic fundamental of 2x2ism is pacifism (as seen in the non-combat policy in military service), so physical violence is proactively shunned in 2x2ism so risk of physical abuse is much lower than the general population. So to summarize, what I am suggesting is that the general population statistics do not apply to 2x2ism from what I have seen in my years of observation. We talk about CSA because there is a considerable amount of it relative to other forms. We don't talk about neglect because there is very little of it, and emotional abuse from overmanaging children is more frequent. We don't talk about broken ribs and smashed faces because there is very little of it. Again, from my observations of many decades, the only other significant abuse among 2x2's which can be closely attributed to the characteristics of 2x2ism is emotional(spiritual) abuse. If we can resolve spiritual abuse and CSA among 2x2ism, abuse of all kinds would be minimal, and starkly less than the general population. 2x2ism simply does not present the same abuse risk profile as the general population. Its unique mix of characteristics makes it a riskier place for two types of abuse, and a safer place for the others. To try to overlay the general population template on the 2x2 population is like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole.....the two are quite different. You indicate that 2x2ism does not present the same abuse risk profile as the general population due to its unique mix of characteristics. Is it possible that our personal experiences might cause us to see things differently? Based on your previous posts it appears that you've had a fairly easy life, free of family friction and obvious abuse. I might be able to form the same conclusions based on my immediate family. We are a close family and I have very pleasant childhood memories. I didn't grow up in the fellowship so am quite familiar with other churches. So I can say without hesitation that the same abuse issues exist in the 2x2 fellowship that exist in the general population (AKA outsiders). I've witnessed marital infidelity, physical abuse, alcoholism, drug abuse, child abuse, verbal abuse, dishonesty, illegal behavior and more - all inside the 2x2 fellowship. At the same time there are some very nice people (and workers) in the system. I also know many of the finest folks you would want to meet outside of the fellowship. What forms of abuse might be more prevalent outside of the fellowship? And what mix of characteristics make it a riskier place? My first guess is that some would say "the workers spend nights in homes where children are present. But anyone capable of the repulsive behavior of CSA does not need the opportunity to stay in a home. They can perform these sick deeds whenever and wherever the opportunity presents itself. Spiritual abuse is not exclusive to the 2x2 fellowship. It happens in countless other religious groups. In my opinion believing that the 2x2 population has a different basic human nature than the general population is an illusion. The enemy of the soul has no preferences and will do its ugly work regardless of religious choice. These are just my thoughts. Did you get that idea from my post? |
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jul 27, 2013 16:55:34 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2013 17:00:41 GMT -5
In no way did that statement intend to convey that F&Ws had human natures any different than society in general. |
|
|
|
Post by jondough on Jul 27, 2013 17:03:47 GMT -5
So you did call it "minor". How is it relevant that there are less numbers of CSA than physical abuse? Does that make CSA less important? Less damaging? Don't mistake this for saying that physical abuse shouldn't be dealt with as well. They both need to be focused on. Its news to me because I don't know what "noth" means? Maybe you can explain and then I can respond. I'll say it in another way though. You may not see the need to use common sense, but when it gets thrown out the window, ridiculous statements can be made. Like trying to convince someone that there is any correlation or comparison between a spanking by a belt that I received all through my childhood, and Child Sexual Abuse. Whatever it is that your "noth" word means....they are NOT comparable. Though I would never use a belt on my kids, I received only positive outcome by the belting corrections I received. Is there any type of positive outcome from CSA? Here's Wiki's definition of "Hyperfocus" maybe you can clarify how we have "Hyperfocused" on CSA. Hyperfocus is an intense form of mental concentration or visualization that focuses consciousness on a narrow subject, separate from objective reality and onto subjective mental planes, daydreams, concepts, fiction, the imagination, and other objects of the mind.[citation needed] It may bear a relationship to the concept of flow.[1]
Contents
[hide] 1 Confusion with perseveration, as a clinical symptom
2 See also
3 References
4 Further reading
Confusion with perseveration, as a clinical symptom[edit]
Hyperfocus may in some cases also be evidence, or symptomatic, of a psychiatric condition, where it is more commonly and accurately[1] described as perseveration (or perseverance) - the inability to, or impairment in, switching tasks or activities ("set shifting"),[2] or desisting from mental or physical response repetition (gestures, words, thoughts) despite absence or cessation of a stimulus,[3][4][5][6] and which is not excessive in terms of quantity but are apparently both functionless and involve a narrow range of behaviours, and are not better described as stereotypy (a highly repetitive idiosyncratic behaviour).
Conditions associated with perseveration include
Neurological conditions, in particular some kinds of autism and ADHD - the autism spectrum (especially Asperger syndrome), and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD)–in the latter it is informally but probably incorrectly called "hyperfocus"[1] and may be a coping mechanism or symptom of self-regulation impairment–as well as people who are both intellectually gifted and suffer a learning disability who may have either or both of hyperfocus and perseverative behaviours.[1] Other conditions involving dysfunction or disregulation within the frontal lobe could also theoretically have similar effects.
Conditions unlikely to be confused with hyperfocus - clinical conditions involving clear repetition of words or behaviours, such as obsessive–compulsive disorder (OCD) or trauma;[7] and cases of physical brain injury, trauma or damage, such as traumatic brain injury and frontal lobe lesions;[2]
Earlier you said: The story about the black shooter was not minimized. It simply wasn't focused on. And by not focusing on it the situation was minimized. Of course, has they focused on the black shooter more, as I am suggestion people focus on the non-sexual abuse more, it would not have been minimized. I'm sorry that confused you, I'll try to clarify; When you said A is higher than B, I did not say you were wrong, B was just lower than A. What I said was, A was where it needed to be, and B should be where A is. Hopefully that will help you confusion on this. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2013 17:15:48 GMT -5
The term "hyperfocus" relating to CSA discussion is a hyper exaggeration.
|
|
|
|
Post by ts on Jul 27, 2013 18:58:15 GMT -5
"So, you got sexually abused as a child. At least you are alive. Quit complaining." That is how it comes across when CSA is minimized as "minor" simply because, statistically, there is less of it and it doesn't kill you. Simply barbaric reasoning. Just goes to show how the elimination of emotion is NOT an advancement in human social skills. Keep re-reading. It is not minor. It is a minor part of abuse. You can continue to post twisted versions of what I posted but it does not change reality. CSA was not minimized. It was simply stated as the data shows. Of all abuse, sexual abuse occurs about 10% of the time. I am glad that you clarified that. Just because 90%(or whatever percent) of the effort is spent on eradicating CSA does not mean that "sex sells". That is ludicrous. It is only proof how bad CSA is. You saying it is not as bad as other types of abuse does not make it so. People who have emotions are very concerned about CSA because CSA destroys your emotions and that affects every part of your life. It even causes death in some cases. |
|
|
|
Post by findingtruth on Jul 27, 2013 19:59:49 GMT -5
You indicate that 2x2ism does not present the same abuse risk profile as the general population due to its unique mix of characteristics. Is it possible that our personal experiences might cause us to see things differently? Based on your previous posts it appears that you've had a fairly easy life, free of family friction and obvious abuse. I might be able to form the same conclusions based on my immediate family. We are a close family and I have very pleasant childhood memories. I didn't grow up in the fellowship so am quite familiar with other churches. So I can say without hesitation that the same abuse issues exist in the 2x2 fellowship that exist in the general population (AKA outsiders). I've witnessed marital infidelity, physical abuse, alcoholism, drug abuse, child abuse, verbal abuse, dishonesty, illegal behavior and more - all inside the 2x2 fellowship. At the same time there are some very nice people (and workers) in the system. I also know many of the finest folks you would want to meet outside of the fellowship. What forms of abuse might be more prevalent outside of the fellowship? And what mix of characteristics make it a riskier place? My first guess is that some would say "the workers spend nights in homes where children are present. But anyone capable of the repulsive behavior of CSA does not need the opportunity to stay in a home. They can perform these sick deeds whenever and wherever the opportunity presents itself. Spiritual abuse is not exclusive to the 2x2 fellowship. It happens in countless other religious groups. In my opinion believing that the 2x2 population has a different basic human nature than the general population is an illusion. The enemy of the soul has no preferences and will do its ugly work regardless of religious choice. These are just my thoughts. Did you get that idea from my post? It was difficult for me to come to any other conclusion based on your comment. While you may not have intended your comment to imply that those in the 2x2 fellowship are any different than all others it came across that way. All abuse is a result of human nature. Do you agree with that? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2013 22:51:09 GMT -5
Did you get that idea from my post? It was difficult for me to come to any other conclusion based on your comment. While you may not have intended your comment to imply that those in the 2x2 fellowship are any different than all others it came across that way. All abuse is a result of human nature. Do you agree with that? All human behaviour is a result of human nature, whether good behaviour or abusive behaviour. My post was about risk profiles of the 2x2 group. People do behave differently in different settinsg and environments no matter what their human natures. Here is what I mean. Do you agree that there is a far higher risk of FGM for females in Egypt than for females in the USA? If you do, and FGM is caused by the same "human nature" of mankind, then why is there an enormous difference? www.economist.com/node/21582341?fsrc=scn/fb/wl/dc/woundsandscarsThere are enormously different risk factors due to cultural differences in spite of the fact that "human natures" in Egypt are much the same as in the US. The abuse in Egypt is huge, but almost non existent in the US because certain risk factors are totally different. I hope that helps illustrate why there can be different risk factors for different sorts of behaviour among the F&Ws vs other groups or the population in general. Behaviour is influenced by teachings, beliefs, understandings of good and bad behaviour, openness of a group, worship of leadership of a group,and it goes on and on. |
|
|
|
Post by findingtruth on Jul 27, 2013 23:33:02 GMT -5
It was difficult for me to come to any other conclusion based on your comment. While you may not have intended your comment to imply that those in the 2x2 fellowship are any different than all others it came across that way. All abuse is a result of human nature. Do you agree with that? All human behaviour is a result of human nature, whether good behaviour or abusive behaviour. My post was about risk profiles of the 2x2 group. People do behave differently in different settinsg and environments no matter what their human natures. Here is what I mean. Do you agree that there is a far higher risk of FGM for females in Egypt than for females in the USA? If you do, and FGM is caused by the same "human nature" of mankind, then why is there an enormous difference? www.economist.com/node/21582341?fsrc=scn/fb/wl/dc/woundsandscarsThere are enormously different risk factors due to cultural differences in spite of the fact that "human natures" in Egypt are much the same as in the US. The abuse in Egypt is huge, but almost non existent in the US because certain risk factors are totally different. I hope that helps illustrate why there can be different risk factors for different sorts of behaviour among the F&Ws vs other groups or the population in general. Behaviour is influenced by teachings, beliefs, understandings of good and bad behaviour, openness of a group, worship of leadership of a group,and it goes on and on. I understand the point you are trying to get across. Perhaps it would be more realistic to associate certain behaviors, as a general rule, with religious culture. FGM is typically associated with the Islamic movement. The Christian movement, as a rule, promotes a different set of values. To separate the 2x2 movement from all other "Christian" movements is somewhat distracting as it is only one of many Christian groups and should not be separated. I guess that's the point I'm attempting to make. Among the Christian population I would say that any type of abuse (sexual, physical, verbal, spiritual, etc) is unacceptable behavior. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2013 0:49:20 GMT -5
All human behaviour is a result of human nature, whether good behaviour or abusive behaviour. My post was about risk profiles of the 2x2 group. People do behave differently in different settinsg and environments no matter what their human natures. Here is what I mean. Do you agree that there is a far higher risk of FGM for females in Egypt than for females in the USA? If you do, and FGM is caused by the same "human nature" of mankind, then why is there an enormous difference? www.economist.com/node/21582341?fsrc=scn/fb/wl/dc/woundsandscarsThere are enormously different risk factors due to cultural differences in spite of the fact that "human natures" in Egypt are much the same as in the US. The abuse in Egypt is huge, but almost non existent in the US because certain risk factors are totally different. I hope that helps illustrate why there can be different risk factors for different sorts of behaviour among the F&Ws vs other groups or the population in general. Behaviour is influenced by teachings, beliefs, understandings of good and bad behaviour, openness of a group, worship of leadership of a group,and it goes on and on. I understand the point you are trying to get across. Perhaps it would be more realistic to associate certain behaviors, as a general rule, with religious culture. FGM is typically associated with the Islamic movement. The Christian movement, as a rule, promotes a different set of values. To separate the 2x2 movement from all other "Christian" movements is somewhat distracting as it is only one of many Christian groups and should not be separated. I guess that's the point I'm attempting to make. Among the Christian population I would say that any type of abuse (sexual, physical, verbal, spiritual, etc) is unacceptable behavior. Separately analyzing various groups for a risk assessment is actually very useful. Shunning for instance, which is an abusive behaviour is a perfectly legitimate behaviour in some Christian groups and not in others. So the risk of being shunned is higher in some groups. High regard of leaders is another risk factor for some Christian groups vs others. When leaders are practically worshipped, then the risk of abuse from those leaders is higher because they now have the opportunity. 2x2's can indeed be singled out for their unique culture and practices. Once those practices are identified, then corrective measures can be taken to lower risk. You mentioned the homestay system of the workers. Yes, that raises risk of offense by workers which don't exist in Christian groups in which leaders don't have such intimate access to children. A one-size fits all approach is not effective. We would all like to think that saying "don't do it" should be all that is required to fix the problem. Not even close. As long as opportunity for crime exists, the criminals will act. That's human nature! Take away the things which give them opportunities and your children will be much safer. |
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jul 28, 2013 0:57:48 GMT -5
So you did call it "minor". No, I didn't call it minor. I said that in looking at all forms of abuse, sexual abuse was a minor part.It is relevant because out of every 100 cases of abuse, on average, only 10 of them will be sexual abuse, a minor part of the total abuse.It has no effect on CSA at all because it is looking at the number of cases of sexual abuse there are compared to the total number of abuse cases.Again, it is not a comment on CSA other than stating that out of the total number of abuse cases reporter the number of sexual abuse cases is a minor part. Perhaps a little story will help. There are 1,000 people standing in the town square. 900 of them are women and 100 are men. Men are the minor part of the crowd.Exactly but the focus is only on sexual abuse. Some posting claim other types of abuse are negligible within the F&W organization. That is a dangerous situation. So sorry my typo caused you such confusion. Here is a corrected version: Sexual abuse and physical abuse are both types of abuse. This should not be news to anyone. There are definition of abuse as well as the different types of abuse. I did not create the definitions. But I am using them because they are the commonly used definitions. If you want to apply a new definition please let readers know so everyone is on the same page.
I hope I have cleared up that single letter error. I can see it must have caused you a lot of puzzlement.I look forward to it.Given the difficulty that the single letter typo caused I can see how you would would arrive at that conclusion. There was no correlation or comparison. Sexual abuse and being struck with an object are both defined as types of abuse. Abuse is abuse. I didn't write the definition. You may think hitting a child with a belt is OK. Even a positive experience. I don't.See - child abuse does not always lead to long term problems.You were abused and looking back you do not see it as negative. Not all people who have been sexually abused suffer long term problems either. I don't know what positive outcome you feel your abuse resulted in but the important thing is that it did not result in long term damage. There is a wide spectrum of abuse yet the narrow focus is on sexual abuse. Object reality is ignored. It really doesn't matter how you say it. There is much less attention given to non-sexual abuse. And because of the lack of attention given to non-sexual abuse it is minimized. |
|
|
|
Post by quizzer on Jul 28, 2013 5:58:29 GMT -5
FT five years ago CSA within the worker section of the F&W's sect would have been considered a rarity. Over the last 3-4 years the focus has been on the workers and more and more cases of CSA and sexual immorality have surfaced, some going back many years. So far the remainder of the fellowship is a largely unknown quantity. However, there are testimonies out there indicating such things as you state, but to what extent I do not know. It is still very much a hidden thing. If the focus was on that part of the sect then who knows what may or may not surface. One thing about abuses, especially in family settings, is that they can remain hidden virtually forever as family members seek to cover things up. Many families that you would think that butter wouldn't melt in their mouths, would surprise you (generally speaking, not YOU specifically. People should keep in mind that long after society had binned corporal punishment for children, the workers were still adhering to it as a sound Biblical doctrine and many a sermon was directed at "spare the rod and spoil the child!" I can well remember sermons at convention (early 90s?) where it was preached about "breaking the will of a child." Children were likened to a young foal whose will needed to be broken before it could be led according to the Master's will!" Parents were advised to break their childrens' will early in life. This was lapped up eagerly by a spiritually parched audience. Coming from the workers, this was God's voice himself. Imagine the havoc such garbage could wreak amongst weaker families? This attitude is still prevalent within the 2x2s. Within the last few months, I've known the workers to make comments to a couple of young families to "keep your family until control!" This phrase means for the parents to do whatever it takes to make young children sit still and unmoving in meetings. You're right, ram. Being able to recognize CSA symptoms does not mean being able to recognize abuse in all of the other formats. Are there any websites used by other churches to recognize other forms of abuse, such as MinistrySafe is used to recognize CSA? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2013 6:49:17 GMT -5
FT five years ago CSA within the worker section of the F&W's sect would have been considered a rarity. Over the last 3-4 years the focus has been on the workers and more and more cases of CSA and sexual immorality have surfaced, some going back many years. So far the remainder of the fellowship is a largely unknown quantity. However, there are testimonies out there indicating such things as you state, but to what extent I do not know. It is still very much a hidden thing. If the focus was on that part of the sect then who knows what may or may not surface. One thing about abuses, especially in family settings, is that they can remain hidden virtually forever as family members seek to cover things up. Many families that you would think that butter wouldn't melt in their mouths, would surprise you (generally speaking, not YOU specifically. People should keep in mind that long after society had binned corporal punishment for children, the workers were still adhering to it as a sound Biblical doctrine and many a sermon was directed at "spare the rod and spoil the child!" I can well remember sermons at convention (early 90s?) where it was preached about "breaking the will of a child." Children were likened to a young foal whose will needed to be broken before it could be led according to the Master's will!" Parents were advised to break their childrens' will early in life. This was lapped up eagerly by a spiritually parched audience. Coming from the workers, this was God's voice himself. Imagine the havoc such garbage could wreak amongst weaker families? This attitude is still prevalent within the 2x2s. Within the last few months, I've known the workers to make comments to a couple of young families to "keep your family until control!" This phrase means for the parents to do whatever it takes to make young children sit still and unmoving in meetings. You're right, ram. Being able to recognize CSA symptoms does not mean being able to recognize abuse in all of the other formats. Are there any websites used by other churches to recognize other forms of abuse, such as MinistrySafe is used to recognize CSA? KW There is a plethora of websites dealing with this. Here is one to get folks started. It was designed for professionals but I don't think the majority of laymen would have any difficulty with it? www.patient.co.uk/doctor/safeguarding-children-how-to-recognise-abuse-or-a-child-at-risk |
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jul 28, 2013 10:34:33 GMT -5
FT five years ago CSA within the worker section of the F&W's sect would have been considered a rarity. Over the last 3-4 years the focus has been on the workers and more and more cases of CSA and sexual immorality have surfaced, some going back many years. So far the remainder of the fellowship is a largely unknown quantity. However, there are testimonies out there indicating such things as you state, but to what extent I do not know. It is still very much a hidden thing. If the focus was on that part of the sect then who knows what may or may not surface. One thing about abuses, especially in family settings, is that they can remain hidden virtually forever as family members seek to cover things up. Many families that you would think that butter wouldn't melt in their mouths, would surprise you (generally speaking, not YOU specifically. People should keep in mind that long after society had binned corporal punishment for children, the workers were still adhering to it as a sound Biblical doctrine and many a sermon was directed at "spare the rod and spoil the child!" I can well remember sermons at convention (early 90s?) where it was preached about "breaking the will of a child." Children were likened to a young foal whose will needed to be broken before it could be led according to the Master's will!" Parents were advised to break their childrens' will early in life. This was lapped up eagerly by a spiritually parched audience. Coming from the workers, this was God's voice himself. Imagine the havoc such garbage could wreak amongst weaker families? This attitude is still prevalent within the 2x2s. Within the last few months, I've known the workers to make comments to a couple of young families to "keep your family until control!" This phrase means for the parents to do whatever it takes to make young children sit still and unmoving in meetings. You're right, ram. Being able to recognize CSA symptoms does not mean being able to recognize abuse in all of the other formats. Are there any websites used by other churches to recognize other forms of abuse, such as MinistrySafe is used to recognize CSA? And it's these types of statements and mindsets that allow already dysfunctional families to go overboard in their attempt to keep their families under control. If you feel you are being judged by your ability to have well behaved children, then you will do whatever it takes to please the workers. Dangerous that. I know my father was very prone to wanting worker acceptance and how it played out for me in my childhood. It wasn't pretty. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2013 12:06:24 GMT -5
This attitude is still prevalent within the 2x2s. Within the last few months, I've known the workers to make comments to a couple of young families to "keep your family until control!" This phrase means for the parents to do whatever it takes to make young children sit still and unmoving in meetings. You're right, ram. Being able to recognize CSA symptoms does not mean being able to recognize abuse in all of the other formats. Are there any websites used by other churches to recognize other forms of abuse, such as MinistrySafe is used to recognize CSA? And it's these types of statements and mindsets that allow already dysfunctional families to go overboard in their attempt to keep their families under control. If you feel you are being judged by your ability to have well behaved children, then you will do whatever it takes to please the workers. Dangerous that. I know my father was very prone to wanting worker acceptance and how it played out for me in my childhood. It wasn't pretty. Snow, these statements do not just affect already dysfunctional families. They can affect normal families too, albeit well indoctrinated ones. |
|
|
|
Post by faune on Jul 28, 2013 13:43:45 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jul 28, 2013 13:56:07 GMT -5
And it's these types of statements and mindsets that allow already dysfunctional families to go overboard in their attempt to keep their families under control. If you feel you are being judged by your ability to have well behaved children, then you will do whatever it takes to please the workers. Dangerous that. I know my father was very prone to wanting worker acceptance and how it played out for me in my childhood. It wasn't pretty. Snow, these statements do not just affect already dysfunctional families. They can affect normal families too, albeit well indoctrinated ones. The more the parents want to please the workers, the more dangerous it is for a child just expressing it's natural exuberance. I have heard here that there are fewer parents that take their children out of meetings to give a spanking to these days. I hope so because I got some pretty brutal spankings at a very young age and I witnessed other kids getting the same treatment. Kids that were far to young to understand the reason other than their parents were angry and they were bad. You tell a child they are bad enough times and they definitely begin to believe it. This is psychologically scarring. I have had to fight that aspect of myself because I heard it so much. Early conditioning does not go away easily. |
|
