|
|
Post by rational on Jul 29, 2013 22:55:16 GMT -5
ok? If you are finally coming around to the thinking that it means no more than simply stating numbers, then we are coming together. I am stating it exactly the same way I did the very first time I posted it. Child sexual abuse is a minor part of all child abuse. Can you explain why they are focused on what represents 10% of the abuse cases instead of child abuse in total?I didn't compare anything to adults looking at other nude adults. I stated that 1,000 people dressed in tan coats would not attract as much attention as nudes.And again I would ask why they are focused on sexual abuse rather than child abuse. An adult breaking a child's arm is not a reprehensible act? A child being emotionally abused is not reprehensible? An infant being shaken so badly that it dies is not bad for Dads, moms, aunts, uncles, grandmothers, friends, and simply most decent fellow human beings to focus on eradicating such behavior? Does a child have to be sexually abused as well in order for Dads, moms, aunts, uncles, grandmothers, and friends to focus on child abuse? [/font][/quote]I never said it was the sex appeal. I simply stated that sex invokes a strong response in people. CSA is also being shown pornographic photos. Can you think of any physical abuse that might be worse than that? But for some reason sexual abuse is appalling and physical or emotional abuse is not. No, it shouldn't. |
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jul 29, 2013 22:56:41 GMT -5
Please folks, do some more research on CSA. We had a big fuss on TMB over the publishing of victim stories on Wings. There are many books full of victim stories. If you think CSA can be compared realistically with other forms of abuse, it tells me you need to hear more from the victims of CSA. Okay - here goes from a (male) victim of CSA. First of all, other forms of physical abuse can easily be considered punishment for wrongdoing by the child, after which he MAY feel like he has paid his debt and can carry on. Most CSA does not ever afford that kind of relief. That is the difference between "growing" and "getting locked in some kind of childhood guilt". Then, broken bones and welts on ones back normally heal, and the pain normally goes away -- so one can appear normal again. But the victim of CSA NEVER regains what he has lost, and I suspect for many males the real pain comes decades later when it is never properly dealt with because no one knows what the cause is. CSA seriously destroys an individual's ability to trust intimately, to communicate intimately, and even to function confidently and comfortably sexually. And among males this means a whole variety of consequences to their self esteem, their marriages, and their whole families when they either have no idea what is wrong with them or what to do about it. The experiences of puberty are healthy and one may even say a celebration of the development of maturity. CSA victims do not have that experience -- the best they can do is pretend it is the same for them as it is for all their peers, until they are grown up and they are entirely responsible for their own mental and social selves no matter what their circumstances. I was fortunate enough to have parents who, though they did not know about my abuse, dignified everything we aspired to accomplish in life. And I happened to choose a profession where my formal training turned out to be the equivalent of therapy needed to deal with what had happened years before. I credit that with experience with saving both my marriage and my sanity. I consider myself much luckier than most. |
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jul 29, 2013 23:44:52 GMT -5
For example ckirkham posted about the abuse he suffered when growing up. Somehow you seemed to have missed these reports of physical abuse and keep saying you will wait until someone mentions they were physically abused. Yes, that was exhibit one. Would you mind listing all the others that cause you to believe so strongly that non-sexual child abuse is an important issue in the 2x2 church? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 30, 2013 2:43:27 GMT -5
And the difference between this and CPA and neglect is? Huge. Even the slightest bit of elaboration would go a long way towards explaining your theory fixit! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 30, 2013 3:19:31 GMT -5
Please folks, do some more research on CSA. We had a big fuss on TMB over the publishing of victim stories on Wings. There are many books full of victim stories. If you think CSA can be compared realistically with other forms of abuse, it tells me you need to hear more from the victims of CSA. I'm sorry fixit, but this clearly reveals that YOU need to become more familiar with the other forms of child abuse. This is very obvious. I do not think anyone participating on this board with respect to the subject of child abuse needs to do more research into CSA to find out how damaging and horrible a thing that it is. However, the fact that other forms of child abuse clearly produce identical results shows that those who think that the other forms are not as serious or potentially as damaging, are in serious need of some education. Most, if not all organisations which deal with child abuse deal with all forms as part of the whole. Why are you so determined to be so different? You really need to hear from the victims of other forms of child abuse, rather than make one-sided judgments coupling same with a limited imagination. Many instances of child physical abuse are not confined to excessive spanking or whipping but actually show hallmarks of sadistic or psychotic control over a child who is too frightened to tell anyone. To claim such circumstances are lesser than instances of CSA (irrespective of the degree) is nothing more than sheer ignorance. What is actually more worrying for me is that I am beginning to suspect that for some they have allowed their focus on CSA to so dictate their agenda that it is simply far too inconvenient and troublesome to broaden their minds to other forms of child abuse. Does it complicate things too much? Who are we trying to please or influence? CSA cannot be separated from other forms of child abuse because they often overlap with each other with forms often found in the same case. I will go further, very often it is unwise to separate child abuse (any form) from domestic abuse, simply because they are part and parcel of the same case. Often child abuse (CSA or otherwise) may only be a small part of an overall case of domestic abuse. Many child protection units within investigation services have been re-designated "Domestic Violence Units" because of this, There is no distinction of what is worse. They are all considered very serious and are treated on their own merits on a case by case basis. If you are seeking to keep CSA a separate issue without consideration to the other forms of child abuse you are very unwise indeed. Having said that, if the focus is on workers then I can see sense in at least in that context focusing on CSA. However, for legal reasons in certain parts of the world, if not for moral, spiritual and civic reasons, the workers need to be acquaint with all forms of child abuse for their own protection. Furthermore, someone mentioned the other day that many cases of CSA coming to light in the fellowship had nothing to do with workers but occurred within the lay fellowship. This alone strongly suggests that other forms of child abuse must be present because they often co-exist! Here is Lesson 1 in educating others into the complexity of all forms of abuse (not just child abuse) and how unwise it is to try and make out one form to be worse than the other. These matters are determined on an individual by individual, case by case basis, nothing else! wiki.answers.com/Q/Are_some_forms_of_abuse_worse_than_others |
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jul 30, 2013 4:25:01 GMT -5
Ram: how should we stop friends and workers from physically abusing our children?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 30, 2013 6:27:09 GMT -5
Ram: how should we stop friends and workers from physically abusing our children? Firstly, look at the education and awareness/prevention/detection measures employed by other churches and organisations and follow suit. There are even organisations out there who deal specifically with abuse in churches. This is well trodden ground from a couple of years ago. Nobody is saying to reduce or take the focus of CSA. Rather it is to recognise the importance of every form of abuse. Addressing them all will have knock on benefits for all. Here is an EXCELLENT place to start. There is far better advice here than I could ever provide. www.ccpas.co.uk/ProvidePolicies.htmlHere is a nice little, inexpensive, very appropriate idea which can be copied or designed to suit! www.ccpas.co.uk/InformationGuides.htmlMore ideas from the same organisation. www.ccpas.co.uk/shop2012/HelpBooklets.htmlAll that the F&W's need to understand is that their church has a responsibility to keep up with child and vulnerable person protection measures being adopted by other like groups and denominations throughout the western world. Then the education and prevention measures get slipped in. It works everywhere else. It's really no big deal..........except for those who think they don't need it! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 30, 2013 7:27:17 GMT -5
Whoa, slow down. You are reading it really wrong. People become dissatisfied clientele for good reasons most of the time. Most often it is due to a form of abuse and in the case of 2x2's, it is by far mostly due to emotional abuse. This is a major change from your earlier statement that forms of abuse other than sexual abuse was negligible among the F&W. My position on abuse has changed very little in the last year or two. I have long maintained that emotional/spiritual abuse was much more frequent (but far less severe on an individual basis) than CSA. It's all on the record. What do you think drives the anti-2x2 movement? Doctrinal differences? Have you read the accounts that people have posted? How many accounts of abuse, physical, emotional, psychological, and/or sexual, do you need? So you are saying that physical and other abuses only accompany CSA? Interesting theory. It is very difficult to hide the broken bones and smashed faces you claim are so frequent. However, there are other reasons why it much more difficult to hide physical abuse and abuse of neglect: health care professionals and teachers are much better trained to recognize it and are required to report it. Signs of abuse express themselves in many ways, not just in bruises. Also, there is a much better environment out there for kids to acknowledge it. Kids are no longer isolated as they once were. The chances of abusers getting caught these days is definitely higher. Perhaps you can explain why other types of abuse only accompany CSA. It is certainly a new idea to me. Of course. There was once an idea that CSA and other abuses didn't do any harm because "he didn't hurt you". Fortunately, we realize today how wrong that was. In fact, physical poundings themselves don't do any lasting damage.....people choose to experience it all the time in sports they love for instance.....it is the psychological damage that results from physical abuse that is the real damage. Somehow you seem to miss my position on this or you are deliberately misrepresenting it. I have long claimed that in earlier eras there was more physical abuse, both directly and resulting from corporal punishment. I am personally aware of many of those situations from when I grew up: 1950's to 1970's. Just because there was more physical abuse in 1970 or 1975, that does not mean that the frequency was the same in 2005. That is a huge mistake to make as it would also be a huge mistake to apply solutions to problems in 1975 to 2013. Instead of wasting so much time misrepresenting or not taking the time to understand my position, why not make your statements of opinion and provide your backup data? You claim that there is a focus on CSA because sex sells and that there are 10X the number of incidents of physical abuses and other abuses than CSA in the F&Ws. That position has never been substantiated and not even close. Once you can give any evidence that there is a severe problem of physical abuse and abuse of neglect today, then we have something to discuss. If you want to analyze 1965 or 1975, then do so and keep it in perspective of the culture of that generation. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 30, 2013 7:31:03 GMT -5
For example ckirkham posted about the abuse he suffered when growing up. Somehow you seemed to have missed these reports of physical abuse and keep saying you will wait until someone mentions they were physically abused. Yes, that was exhibit one. Would you mind listing all the others that cause you to believe so strongly that non-sexual child abuse is an important issue in the 2x2 church? The problem is, rational is attempting to prove that there is a severe problem from an example of a generation ago. It is like saying that because so many people were killed in driving accidents for not wearing seatbelts in 1965, then there must be the same number of people being killed for not wearing seatbelts today. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 30, 2013 7:38:21 GMT -5
Please folks, do some more research on CSA. We had a big fuss on TMB over the publishing of victim stories on Wings. There are many books full of victim stories. If you think CSA can be compared realistically with other forms of abuse, it tells me you need to hear more from the victims of CSA. Okay - here goes from a (male) victim of CSA. First of all, other forms of physical abuse can easily be considered punishment for wrongdoing by the child, after which he MAY feel like he has paid his debt and can carry on. Most CSA does not ever afford that kind of relief. That is the difference between "growing" and "getting locked in some kind of childhood guilt". Then, broken bones and welts on ones back normally heal, and the pain normally goes away -- so one can appear normal again. But the victim of CSA NEVER regains what he has lost, and I suspect for many males the real pain comes decades later when it is never properly dealt with because no one knows what the cause is. CSA seriously destroys an individual's ability to trust intimately, to communicate intimately, and even to function confidently and comfortably sexually. And among males this means a whole variety of consequences to their self esteem, their marriages, and their whole families when they either have no idea what is wrong with them or what to do about it. The experiences of puberty are healthy and one may even say a celebration of the development of maturity. CSA victims do not have that experience -- the best they can do is pretend it is the same for them as it is for all their peers, until they are grown up and they are entirely responsible for their own mental and social selves no matter what their circumstances. I was fortunate enough to have parents who, though they did not know about my abuse, dignified everything we aspired to accomplish in life. And I happened to choose a profession where my formal training turned out to be the equivalent of therapy needed to deal with what had happened years before. I credit that with experience with saving both my marriage and my sanity. I consider myself much luckier than most. Great post. Thanks Bob. You have also explained well why low level abuse such as corporal punishment is far less damaging. The idea in the child's mind that they have paid their debt and their relationship with the parents is now 100% again is the reason why corporal punishment has had far less damage than severe abuses such as CSA which doesn't have a termination point. Why anyone would want to promote the idea that all abuses were equal in damages is completely beyond me. Everyone has suffered various bad experience over a lifetime and almost everyone knows that some of them stick with you and affect you a long time and some are resolved fairly quickly. That's pretty basic and common human experience. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 30, 2013 8:12:01 GMT -5
Okay - here goes from a (male) victim of CSA. First of all, other forms of physical abuse can easily be considered punishment for wrongdoing by the child, after which he MAY feel like he has paid his debt and can carry on. Most CSA does not ever afford that kind of relief. That is the difference between "growing" and "getting locked in some kind of childhood guilt". Then, broken bones and welts on ones back normally heal, and the pain normally goes away -- so one can appear normal again. But the victim of CSA NEVER regains what he has lost, and I suspect for many males the real pain comes decades later when it is never properly dealt with because no one knows what the cause is. CSA seriously destroys an individual's ability to trust intimately, to communicate intimately, and even to function confidently and comfortably sexually. And among males this means a whole variety of consequences to their self esteem, their marriages, and their whole families when they either have no idea what is wrong with them or what to do about it. The experiences of puberty are healthy and one may even say a celebration of the development of maturity. CSA victims do not have that experience -- the best they can do is pretend it is the same for them as it is for all their peers, until they are grown up and they are entirely responsible for their own mental and social selves no matter what their circumstances. I was fortunate enough to have parents who, though they did not know about my abuse, dignified everything we aspired to accomplish in life. And I happened to choose a profession where my formal training turned out to be the equivalent of therapy needed to deal with what had happened years before. I credit that with experience with saving both my marriage and my sanity. I consider myself much luckier than most. Great post. Thanks Bob. You have also explained well why low level abuse such as corporal punishment is far less damaging. The idea in the child's mind that they have paid their debt and their relationship with the parents is now 100% again is the reason why corporal punishment has had far less damage than severe abuses such as CSA which doesn't have a termination point. Why anyone would want to promote the idea that all abuses were equal in damages is completely beyond me. Everyone has suffered various bad experience over a lifetime and almost everyone knows that some of them stick with you and affect you a long time and some are resolved fairly quickly. That's pretty basic and common human experience. In the past almost everyone was subject to a certain degree of low level corporal punishment. This element is not what is being portrayed for comparison. Many very serious cases of child abuse and neglect have their origins or excuse in the background of corporal punishment, but are far in excess of your understanding of corporal punishment. The equation of Low level or standard corporal punishment -= child abuse is a complete falacy. In fact low level corporal punishment, where no injuries or marks are caused is generally not against the law. Child Physical Abuse occurs when corporal punishment, inter alia, is excessive to every level of severity including very serious injury and murder. That is the correct perspective. As a counter example I could claim that the innocent forcing of a 5 year old child to sit on my lap is tantamount to child sexual abuse and claim that is more serious than smashing a child's ribs or skull! Just accept that all forms of child abuse are wrong and all can be equally harmful to a child, depending upon the child's resilience, circumstances, degree of abuse, duration, injuries, etc. They are all wrong and need eradicated |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 30, 2013 8:21:07 GMT -5
Great post. Thanks Bob. You have also explained well why low level abuse such as corporal punishment is far less damaging. The idea in the child's mind that they have paid their debt and their relationship with the parents is now 100% again is the reason why corporal punishment has had far less damage than severe abuses such as CSA which doesn't have a termination point. Why anyone would want to promote the idea that all abuses were equal in damages is completely beyond me. Everyone has suffered various bad experience over a lifetime and almost everyone knows that some of them stick with you and affect you a long time and some are resolved fairly quickly. That's pretty basic and common human experience. In the past almost everyone was subject to a certain degree of low level corporal punishment. This element is not what is being portrayed for comparison. Many very serious cases of child abuse and neglect have their origins or excuse in the background of corporal punishment, but are far in excess of your understanding of corporal punishment. The equation of Low level or standard corporal punishment -= child abuse is a complete falacy. In fact low level corporal punishment, where no injuries or marks are caused is generally not against the law. Child Physical Abuse occurs when corporal punishment, inter alia, is excessive to every level of severity including very serious injury and murder. That is the correct perspective. As a counter example I could claim that the innocent forcing of a 5 year old child to sit on my lap is tantamount to child sexual abuse. Ram, this is a discussion of abuse, not the law. Just because something is legal doesn't make it right. Over history, the law allowed or even caused abuse, so the fact that non-bruising corporal punishment is legal does not exclude it from abuse. It is abusive to inflict pain on other human beings, particularly young children....in fact it is the most ugly and primitive form of discipline. The law simply hasn't caught up to that fact and we all know why: political lobbying, particularly from fundamentalists. That law will some day fall, and all infliction of pain on children will be illegal.....it is coming. You cannot justify child corporal punishment on any level, it is abuse. Trying to hide behind the law doesn't justify such primitive brutality. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 30, 2013 8:30:59 GMT -5
In the past almost everyone was subject to a certain degree of low level corporal punishment. This element is not what is being portrayed for comparison. Many very serious cases of child abuse and neglect have their origins or excuse in the background of corporal punishment, but are far in excess of your understanding of corporal punishment. The equation of Low level or standard corporal punishment -= child abuse is a complete falacy. In fact low level corporal punishment, where no injuries or marks are caused is generally not against the law. Child Physical Abuse occurs when corporal punishment, inter alia, is excessive to every level of severity including very serious injury and murder. That is the correct perspective. As a counter example I could claim that the innocent forcing of a 5 year old child to sit on my lap is tantamount to child sexual abuse. Ram, this is a discussion of abuse, not the law. Just because something is legal doesn't make it right. Over history, the law allowed or even caused abuse, so the fact that non-bruising corporal punishment is legal does not exclude it from abuse. It is abusive to inflict pain on other human beings, particularly young children....in fact it is the most ugly and primitive form of discipline. The law simply hasn't caught up to that fact and we all know why: political lobbying, particularly from fundamentalists. That law will some day fall, and all infliction of pain on children will be illegal.....it is coming. You cannot justify child corporal punishment on any level, it is abuse. Trying to hide behind the law doesn't justify such primitive brutality. CD You are missing my point. Your posts are minimalising Child Physical Abuse to low level corporal punishment to suit your own argument, which is seriously wrong. In the main, the "reported cases" of child physical abuse exceed by far normal or standard child correction by physical means. Yes low level corporal punishment is wrong, but in most cases it in no way causes long term harm to the child. There will be very few if any of these instances which come before the law, or make any legal progress. Every case of child physical abuse which is progressed by the authorities is a case which far exceeds acceptable corporal punishment (legal or otherwise). Please raise your sights a bit. Also, it will be a very sad day indeed if low level physical chastisement of children is made illegal. It will criminalise most parents, who from time to time resort to such measures for one reason or another. The fact that it is now socially unacceptable is a good level to be at without creating more criminals. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 30, 2013 9:00:43 GMT -5
Ram, this is a discussion of abuse, not the law. Just because something is legal doesn't make it right. Over history, the law allowed or even caused abuse, so the fact that non-bruising corporal punishment is legal does not exclude it from abuse. It is abusive to inflict pain on other human beings, particularly young children....in fact it is the most ugly and primitive form of discipline. The law simply hasn't caught up to that fact and we all know why: political lobbying, particularly from fundamentalists. That law will some day fall, and all infliction of pain on children will be illegal.....it is coming. You cannot justify child corporal punishment on any level, it is abuse. Trying to hide behind the law doesn't justify such primitive brutality. CD You are missing my point. Your posts are minimalising Child Physical Abuse to low level corporal punishment to suit your own argument, which is seriously wrong. In the main, the "reported cases" of child physical abuse exceed by far normal or standard child correction by physical means. Yes low level corporal punishment is wrong, but in most cases it in no way causes long term harm to the child. There will be very few if any of these instances which come before the law, or make any legal progress. Every case of child physical abuse which is progressed by the authorities is a case which far exceeds acceptable corporal punishment (legal or otherwise). Please raise your sights a bit. Also, it will be a very sad day indeed if low level physical chastisement of children is made illegal. It will criminalise most parents, who from time to time resort to such measures for one reason or another. The fact that it is now socially unacceptable is a good level to be at without creating more criminals. I am not minimizing anything. I am simply pointing out your false argument that corporal punishment is not abuse because it is legal. That is wrong on every level. I thought it was you who wanted to include all abuse in these discussions and get away from so much focus on CSA. Now that it is happening, you are displeased. I am glad however, that your current post is acknowledging that corporal punishment is unacceptable in society because that is true and that is why you don't see parents hitting their children in public because almost everyone knows it is wrong and unacceptable. I would like to see it illegal and a strong stigma against it. It is all part of the battle against child abuse. You claim that all abuse is connected. Well, corporal punishment is strongly connected to higher level physical abuse. It was you who chastised me for suggesting the corporal punishment be taken out of the abuse discussion (for reasons which I explained) and now you are switching your argument, wanting to suppress discussion of corporal punishment as if inflicting physical pain on children is good sometimes and bad sometimes. It is all bad. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 30, 2013 9:25:46 GMT -5
CD You are missing my point. Your posts are minimalising Child Physical Abuse to low level corporal punishment to suit your own argument, which is seriously wrong. In the main, the "reported cases" of child physical abuse exceed by far normal or standard child correction by physical means. Yes low level corporal punishment is wrong, but in most cases it in no way causes long term harm to the child. There will be very few if any of these instances which come before the law, or make any legal progress. Every case of child physical abuse which is progressed by the authorities is a case which far exceeds acceptable corporal punishment (legal or otherwise). Please raise your sights a bit. Also, it will be a very sad day indeed if low level physical chastisement of children is made illegal. It will criminalise most parents, who from time to time resort to such measures for one reason or another. The fact that it is now socially unacceptable is a good level to be at without creating more criminals. I am not minimizing anything. I am simply pointing out your false argument that corporal punishment is not abuse because it is legal. That is wrong on every level. No, you have been representing child physical abuse as low level corporal punishment. That is my objection. I have never stated that corporal punishment is not abuse. However, reportable cases of child physical abuse will in every case be incidents where the level of chastisement, punishment, behaviour, is in excess of what is legally acceptable. In other words, any statistics presented will fall into this category.I thought it was you who wanted to include all abuse in these discussions and get away from so much focus on CSA. Now that it is happening, you are displeased. I am glad however, that your current post is acknowledging that corporal punishment is unacceptable in society because that is true and that is why you don't see parents hitting their children in public because almost everyone knows it is wrong and unacceptable. I would like to see it illegal and a strong stigma against it. It is all part of the battle against child abuse. You claim that all abuse is connected. Well, corporal punishment is strongly connected to higher level physical abuse. It was you who chastised me for suggesting the corporal punishment be taken out of the abuse discussion (for reasons which I explained) and now you are switching your argument, wanting to suppress discussion of corporal punishment as if inflicting physical pain on children is good sometimes and bad sometimes. It is all bad. No, you are misrepresenting me. How often do I have to keep pointing out the importance of context? Corporal punishment is generally NOT regarded as child physical abuse unless it is of a degree which is excessive, or results in marks or bruising to a child etc. We are comparing child physical abuse, i.e. those cases which are reportable for legal purposes, with child sexual abuse. That's what all the statistics is about. You are attempting to drag the importance of child physical abuse down to the lowest possible level and use that base as a comparison with CSA.
[/font][/b] |
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jul 30, 2013 9:41:50 GMT -5
This is a major change from your earlier statement that forms of abuse other than sexual abuse was negligible among the F&W. My position on abuse has changed very little in the last year or two. I have long maintained that emotional/spiritual abuse was much more frequent (but far less severe on an individual basis) than CSA. This is difficult to believe. What part of sexual abuse causes the most long term damage? The physical part of the emotional/psychological part? Even when there is physical abuse it is the emotional and psychological components that cause the long term damage.It is. You have argued that non-sexual abuse was minimal in the F&W organization. What do you think drives the anti-2x2 movement? Doctrinal differences? It is very difficult to hide the broken bones and smashed faces you claim are so frequent.[/quote]I have used those examples to counter the claims that sexual abuse is worse than physical abuse. There are degrees of all types of abuse. That is true. That is why how many victims is known. Other types of abuse do not only accompany sexual abuse but abuse of one type is frequently accompanied by another. Abusers abuse. The same is true for sex. People choose to have sex frequently. Nope. There is no data that concerns only the F&W and their abuse rate. The numbers I quoted and the data I suplied was from a number of research papers that indicate that abuse is wide spread and happens at all levels of society. There is no reason to believe that the F&W are any different. You keep claiming they are but are unable to back up that claim with anything but your belief. Perhaps even a study ow two that shows that abuse rates do vary by different population groups. I have extrapolated the available data to the F&W. Can you provide support to show that the membership is different? OR data that shows a similar group has minimal non-sexual abuse? So just to understand your position - You think there was physical abuse back decades ago but it does not happen now. The stories of the adults, who were children then, will not be repeated when the current children mature. The 4 children in MI who were removed from their home were probably lying. Abuse in the F&W group, with the exception of sexual abuse, has been reduced to the point where it is negligible. You believe that the population makeup of the F&W is so different from the general population that instead of sexual abuse representing only about 10% of the total abuse cases that it represents perhaps 90% of the abuse cases. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 30, 2013 9:48:17 GMT -5
[/font][/b][/quote]
Ok, I did misunderstand you. You do believe that inflicting pain on children is a good thing under some (presumably complex) circumstances. The truth is, all infliction of pain on children for discipline purposes is wrong. It is illegal to do it on your dog for heaven's sake, when will children get free of this primitive brutality? I hope we don't have to wait long.
I am not dragging down the conversation, I am being all inclusive. If you want to talk about physical abuse, please don't try to justify some of it. Inflicting physical pain on children for control purposes is wrong in all circumstances, there are no exceptions. Corporal punishment is a gateway to higher level physical abuse of children. People who tout corporal punishment as a good thing are part of the problem of all physical abuse. It is very connected. Even if you don't do it yourself, your acceptance of it at lower levels legitimizes even worse child physical abuse.
I hope you are not now going to tell us that CSA only includes touching a child on the genitals or breasts? It's the same thing. Touching sexually is touching sexually. Inflicting pain for control and domination is inflicting pain for control and domination. You can't say "a little bit of pain is good but a little more pain is bad", but that is what you are saying.
|
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jul 30, 2013 10:07:42 GMT -5
For example ckirkham posted about the abuse he suffered when growing up. Somehow you seemed to have missed these reports of physical abuse and keep saying you will wait until someone mentions they were physically abused. Yes, that was exhibit one. Would you mind listing all the others that cause you to believe so strongly that non-sexual child abuse is an important issue in the 2x2 church? Here are some: The letter from Dale R on WINGS states that all of the children were physically, mentally, and emotionally abused by both their father and mother. Kent 2 relates that the children were hit with a cowboy belt with a silver buckle. You should really read the letters for yourself rather than me listing them. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 30, 2013 10:15:14 GMT -5
CD Please step back from the emotional side of things and try and gain an understanding of what every organisation, ranging from child protection organisations, social work depts, police, courts etc., regards as CHILD PHYSICAL ABUSE! Here is a little document to show you from a UK perspective what the definition of: 1) Physical abuse 2) Emotional abuse 3) CSA 4) Neglect in reality are. The document will also show you what the signs are that constitute these abuses. Like it or not, we have to go by legal guidance. www.nspcc.org.uk/inform/trainingandconsultancy/consultancy/helpandadvice/definitions_and_signs_of_child_abuse_pdf_wdf65412.pdfTake time and study the above. The various statistics and comparisons between CSA and CPA etc basically follow these guidelines or their equivalent. The great majority of corporal punishment, does not fit in with the above. Unless it is excessive it is not illegal and does not feature in any statistics for the above. Physically chastising a child is now socially unacceptable. I believe that is where it should remain, rather than be elevated to a criminal offence. Where it is excessive or causes marks or bruises to a child, etc., it is criminalised by the above definitions and signs. It is senseless to criminalise the lowest end of corporal punishment, quite simply because you will make criminals out of 90-95% of parents, as well as creating many more problems as a result. So far, the socially unacceptable route is paying many dividends. Remember too that in many cases where parents over-react, it is support that they actually need, not condemnation and punishment. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 30, 2013 10:16:48 GMT -5
My position on abuse has changed very little in the last year or two. I have long maintained that emotional/spiritual abuse was much more frequent (but far less severe on an individual basis) than CSA. This is difficult to believe. What part of sexual abuse causes the most long term damage? The physical part of the emotional/psychological part? Even when there is physical abuse it is the emotional and psychological components that cause the long term damage.It is. You have argued that non-sexual abuse was minimal in the F&W organization. What do you think drives the anti-2x2 movement? Doctrinal differences? False. No matter how many times you misrepresent it, you can't make it true. Try reading more carefully. I have long stated that emotional/spiritual abuse in the 2x2's is far more frequent than CSA and it still is, but to a lessening extent. I won't repeat this again for awhile because it can't be said any plainer. If you want to take it as a change in position, be my guest, it really doesn't matter to me how you misrepresent things as long as you get it right now. I have used those examples to counter the claims that sexual abuse is worse than physical abuse. There are degrees of all types of abuse.[/quote] I am glad to hear that you are finally coming around to understanding that there are degrees of abuse, that's a breakthrough. There are also degrees of CSA by the way, in case you are interested in knowing that. Abusers abuse. Well, that is one explanation. Good try. That is the point. Extrapolate all you want but the assumptions and inference levels are so high as to render your conclusions useless. Until you have some reason to overlay general population results on distinctive sub-groups of society, you are using a false premise. I have already demonstrated that the data is different on numerous occasions. As soon as you supply 10X the number of physical and neglect abuses as there are known CSA abuses, then you will be able to start using general population data to predict 2x2 behaviour. I have stated clearly on many occasions that physical abuse has greatly diminished to where it is not a significant issue today. Even in society in general today, I believe that physical abuse is much lower than it was 20-50 years ago. I don't know how many times I have to repeat it but I won't repeat it again for awhile. I have already promised in this post that I won't repeat again for awhile what I see as the abuse profile of the 2x2's but you have posted my position wrongly again. Please get it right as I don't have the time to keep responding to insincere representations as it is now bordering on irrationality. I have stated what I see as the risk profile of the 2x2 group clearly and unequivocally on many posts and yes, it is different than the general population....you already know that. You disagree and that's fine, but please let's not waste each other's time going over and over it as I have better things to do, surely you do too. Repeating your disagreements and misrepresentations of my views is fruitless. Your position would be much better served by explaining why it is so superior. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 30, 2013 10:18:33 GMT -5
CD Please step back from the emotional side of things and try and gain an understanding of what every organisation, ranging from child protection organisations, social work depts, police, courts etc., regards as CHILD PHYSICAL ABUSE! Here is a little document to show you from a UK perspective what the definition of: 1) Physical abuse 2) Emotional abuse 3) CSA 4) Neglect in reality are. The document will also show you what the signs are that constitute these abuses. Like it or not, we have to go by legal guidance. www.nspcc.org.uk/inform/trainingandconsultancy/consultancy/helpandadvice/definitions_and_signs_of_child_abuse_pdf_wdf65412.pdfTake time and study the above. The various statistics and comparisons between CSA and CPA etc basically follow these guidelines or their equivalent. The great majority of corporal punishment, does not fit in with the above. Unless it is excessive it is not illegal and does not feature in any statistics for the above. Physically chastising a child is now socially unacceptable. I believe that is where it should remain, rather than be elevated to a criminal offence. Where it is excessive or causes marks or bruises to a child, etc., it is criminalised by the above definitions and signs. It is senseless to criminalise the lowest end of corporal punishment, quite simply because you will make criminals out of 90-95% of parents, as well as creating many more problems as a result. So far, the socially unacceptable route is paying many dividends. Remember too that in many cases where parents over-react, it is support that they actually need, not condemnation and punishment. As soon as you bring "emotion" into the conversation ram, I always know it is you are who is getting emotional. I will step back considerably and allow you to cool off. Thanks for the URL's. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 30, 2013 10:40:13 GMT -5
CD Please step back from the emotional side of things and try and gain an understanding of what every organisation, ranging from child protection organisations, social work depts, police, courts etc., regards as CHILD PHYSICAL ABUSE! Here is a little document to show you from a UK perspective what the definition of: 1) Physical abuse 2) Emotional abuse 3) CSA 4) Neglect in reality are. The document will also show you what the signs are that constitute these abuses. Like it or not, we have to go by legal guidance. www.nspcc.org.uk/inform/trainingandconsultancy/consultancy/helpandadvice/definitions_and_signs_of_child_abuse_pdf_wdf65412.pdfTake time and study the above. The various statistics and comparisons between CSA and CPA etc basically follow these guidelines or their equivalent. The great majority of corporal punishment, does not fit in with the above. Unless it is excessive it is not illegal and does not feature in any statistics for the above. Physically chastising a child is now socially unacceptable. I believe that is where it should remain, rather than be elevated to a criminal offence. Where it is excessive or causes marks or bruises to a child, etc., it is criminalised by the above definitions and signs. It is senseless to criminalise the lowest end of corporal punishment, quite simply because you will make criminals out of 90-95% of parents, as well as creating many more problems as a result. So far, the socially unacceptable route is paying many dividends. Remember too that in many cases where parents over-react, it is support that they actually need, not condemnation and punishment. As soon as you bring "emotion" into the conversation ram, I always know it is you are who is getting emotional. I will step back considerably and allow you to cool off. Thanks for the URL's. CD I see you have much to learn about "emotional abuse!" |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 30, 2013 10:50:01 GMT -5
Yes, that was exhibit one. Would you mind listing all the others that cause you to believe so strongly that non-sexual child abuse is an important issue in the 2x2 church? Here are some: The letter from Dale R on WINGS states that all of the children were physically, mentally, and emotionally abused by both their father and mother. Kent 2 relates that the children were hit with a cowboy belt with a silver buckle. You should really read the letters for yourself rather than me listing them. I will risk inflaming the dialogue by referring to the former VOT website which was certainly a magnet for those who had been physically and emotionally abused during their time in the sect. Perhaps if we had listened to these monstrous unreliables we would not be having this discourse now? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 30, 2013 11:10:16 GMT -5
As soon as you bring "emotion" into the conversation ram, I always know it is you are who is getting emotional. I will step back considerably and allow you to cool off. Thanks for the URL's. CD I see you have much to learn about "emotional abuse!"True. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 30, 2013 11:12:40 GMT -5
Here are some: The letter from Dale R on WINGS states that all of the children were physically, mentally, and emotionally abused by both their father and mother. Kent 2 relates that the children were hit with a cowboy belt with a silver buckle. You should really read the letters for yourself rather than me listing them. I will risk inflaming the dialogue by referring to the former VOT website which was certainly a magnet for those who had been physically and emotionally abused during their time in the sect. Perhaps if we had listened to these monstrous unreliables we would not be having this discourse now? I would recommend you and rational digging through the book "Reflections" for examples of physical abuse. There are some there. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 30, 2013 11:16:59 GMT -5
Yes, that was exhibit one. Would you mind listing all the others that cause you to believe so strongly that non-sexual child abuse is an important issue in the 2x2 church? Here are some: The letter from Dale R on WINGS states that all of the children were physically, mentally, and emotionally abused by both their father and mother. Kent 2 relates that the children were hit with a cowboy belt with a silver buckle. You should really read the letters for yourself rather than me listing them. I got hit with a belt with a big buckle on it too. It wasn't silver, so does it count in your statistical analysis proving that physical abuse is a big problem today? |
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jul 30, 2013 12:17:27 GMT -5
Ram: how should we stop friends and workers from physically abusing our children? Report them. Just like any other abuse to children. Report them to the authorities. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 30, 2013 12:38:58 GMT -5
I will risk inflaming the dialogue by referring to the former VOT website which was certainly a magnet for those who had been physically and emotionally abused during their time in the sect. Perhaps if we had listened to these monstrous unreliables we would not be having this discourse now? I would recommend you and rational digging through the book "Reflections" for examples of physical abuse. There are some there. I know a few potential sources from past readings. I am sure you appreciate it is quite a time-consuming task. That is one of the reasons I created a thread for contributions. Would you accept testimonies from VOT? |
|
