Chris Chandler pleads guilty to CSA-March 20, 2014

[Deleted]

And for those who are awaiting the outcome of Mr.Chandler's trial, we should expect a conclusion by the end of June.

[rational]

May 30, 2014 0:46:09 GMT -5 @clearday said:

It's pretty simple. Victims of CSA reject Clancy's conclusions as ridiculous and not worth the response......just as the best academics of Harvard University did....essentially unanimously. Victims here reject it similarly.

I doubt you can provide any information to back up your claims regarding the victims.

Interviewer: You write that you’ve experienced quite a backlash from your work on child abuse when you were at Harvard. Was it really that bad?

Clancy: It’s bad enough I moved to Nicaragua. When I was at Harvard — the peak of my career, at the university you want to be, surrounded by all the people who were the titans in the field — there was just so much bullsh- going on. People focused on a type of abuse that affects maybe 2 percent of the population, millions of dollars for funding that doesn’t apply to most victims, bestselling books written by therapists misportraying sexual abuse. I would try to tell the truth. I would be attacked. Grad students wouldn’t talk to me.

Professors would tell me to leave for other fields. I just felt disillusioned. I got this opportunity from the World Bank to do cross-cultural research on how sexual abuse is understood in Latin America. I came down to Central America, and I’ve stayed.

It's not only the brightest in the world who have rejected her conclusions, it is also the victims who know she is wrong. And now she is playing the victim.

What happened at Harvard is the same thing that is happening here. The facts do not agree with the preconceived notions of the people so they reject it without evaluating the content.

And really, why stop at Harvard? The US Congress initially condemned the other research I posted. People in congress have so much insight into these matters. But at least you have the backing of radio personality Dr. Laura Schlessinger.

As far as any of the researchers 'playing the victim' what would you expect a researcher to do? Deny the data to bend to popular beliefs? If that was the case we would be standing in line for blood letting. The work and ideas of Lister would have been thrown out with the garbage because they challenged the standard operating procedures (in a very real and literal sense) of the day.


From The Effects of Child Sexual Abuse: Truth Versus Political Correctness

Conclusions

In a story in the New York Times, Benedict Carey (2004) gives several examples of research projects involving sexual behavior that were canceled or are at risk. The title of his article is "Long after Kinsey, only the brave study sex." He concludes that American's ambivalence regarding sexuality means sex researchers "operate in a kind of scientific underground, fearing suppression or public censure" (p. 1).

In fall, 2004, I flew from Denver to Minneapolis after working on a case. Shortly before the plane left, a man dressed in hunting clothing sat next to me. He was talkative and friendly and told me he had been elk hunting. He asked me what I did. I told him I was a forensic psychologist and had been consulting on a case involving child sexual abuse allegations.

"I know what I'd do," he said," "I'd take that guy outside and shoot him. None of them should be given a second chance."

This is the typical reaction I get when I tell people I review child interviews in sexual abuse cases or evaluate sex offenders. It doesn't matter whether the person is male or female, young or old, conservative or liberal. I have heard such sentiments from all manner of people. It may, by now, simply be impossible to do the type of research that will help solve important social problems dealing with sexual behavior.

If such research is somehow conducted, it will be difficult to report results if they contradict popularly held beliefs.
(emphasis added)

[SharonArnold]

Rat, I am not a “picking at points” sort of person, nor am I into splitting hairs . Therefore I am not going to respond to you in an equivalent format.

When you articulate your position to me, then it seems much more reasonable. Thank you. I may no longer wake up in the middle of the night thinking you are some kind of freak or weirdo who has wandered into this forum and become an apologist for wrong-doings within 2X2ism.

I think most people could agree that:

1) Not everyone is traumatized by CSA to the same degree.
2) Not everything that is currently classified as CSA is equivalent.
3) Many of the people who think they are helping CSA victims are actually exacerbating the situation.
4) Clancy’s definition of “trauma” is exceedingly narrow. I could (somewhat facetiously) re-phrase as “Just because I did not become an axe-murderer, I am relatively unaffected by CSA perpetuated on my person.”

Anything presented in a scientific journal or any other forum, is simply a DISCUSSION POINT. It is not a foregone conclusion. There are plenty of peer-reviewed studies that are in conflict with each other, particularly in my area of expertise. (Climate change would be another such area.)

I have no problems at entertaining Clancy’s pov as a discussion point. I am not accusing anybody in Clancy’s study of deliberately falsifying results. Not at all. Did not even begin to go there. But I know how easy it is to present wrong conclusions/direction out of ignorance under the umbrella of ‘expertise’. I have done it. (And perhaps, I have now reached a point in my life, where my “dharma” is to redeem myself - time will tell, I guess.)

I still find an (over-) discussion of Clancy’s research quite inappropriate and repugnant on this particular forum.

The reason why still comes back to Tom Young’s statement of “This had happened many times in Canada (workers molesting children), and that the girls get over it and ‘we’ can’t put the workers out, because we have so few workers, and need them so bad.”

As far as your comments of a more personal nature directed to me. You may call it emotion – I would call it passion. And, God help me, if the time comes in my life where I never feel this kind of emotion/passion, then I need to take myself off into the hereafter – whatever that may hold. So – absolutely no apologies for emotion (aka “passion”). One of my current taglines is: “When you do things from your soul, you feel a river moving in you, a joy. ~Rumi” . This is now what I reach for in most endeavors in my life.

I will not be shamed by “clearly it does not involve looking at information presented without the distortion of emotion” .

To be quite clear, I do not find “rationality” a worthy God – even though that may be yours.

I am still waiting for the CSA/other sexual abuse victims (other than Matisse and Clearday) to weigh in on this discussion.

[rational]

May 30, 2014 17:19:17 GMT -5 SharonArnold said:

Rat, I am not a “picking at points” sort of person, nor am I into splitting hairs . Therefore I am not going to respond to you in an equivalent format.

That is fine. I respond in this manner to highlight each point being addressed and to avoid being told I have misquoted what someone posted.

When you articulate your position to me, then it seems much more reasonable. Thank you. I may no longer wake up in the middle of the night thinking you are some kind of freak or weirdo who has wandered into this forum and become an apologist for wrong-doings within 2X2ism.

Glad that you are able to sleep. However, I don't think you can actually rule out that I am not some kind of a freak or weirdo! However, I have attempted to look beyond the emotional responses and respond to the reality of the situation as can best be determined by the data available.

I think most people could agree that:

1) Not everyone is traumatized by CSA to the same degree.
2) Not everything that is currently classified as CSA is equivalent.
3) Many of the people who think they are helping CSA victims are actually exacerbating the situation.
4) Clancy’s definition of “trauma” is exceedingly narrow. I could (somewhat facetiously) re-phrase as “Just because I did not become an axe-murderer, I am relatively unaffected by CSA perpetuated on my person.”

In her book Clancy remarks on her narrow definition of trauma. Given she was approaching the damage caused by abuse from the perspective of how people arrived at their conclusions it makes sense to control the definition. In this case, the narrow definition was something that the reader would have been aware of at the very beginning of the book.

Anything presented in a scientific journal or any other forum, is simply a DISCUSSION POINT.

Exactly. I presented them as alternatie views regarding the long term effects of abuse.

It is not a foregone conclusion. There are plenty of peer-reviewed studies that are in conflict with each other, particularly in my area of expertise.

I have no idea of what your area of expertise is but that is one of the functions of publishing papers - to express a point of view for discussion. In the chance that there is no discussion and the results are accepted, it moves from a discussion point to fact.

I have no problems at entertaining Clancy’s pov as a discussion point. I am not accusing anybody in Clancy’s study of deliberately falsifying results. Not at all. Did not even begin to go there. But I know how easy it is to present wrong conclusions/direction out of ignorance under the umbrella of ‘expertise’. I have done it. (And perhaps, I have now reached a point in my life, where my “dharma” is to redeem myself - time will tell, I guess.)

If this was something that was presented only by Clancy it would not carry a lot of weight. But there were others, well known in their field, who also agreed. However, as was shown in the article I posted regarding political correctness and how it hinders research, it takes a brave person to present research of an emotional nature that goes against popular belief.

I still find an (over-) discussion of Clancy’s research quite inappropriate and repugnant on this particular forum.

I find the discussion of CSA on any forum repugnant. However I feel it is appropriate because it gets the information out. It is as important to get out the information regarding the incidents of CAS out so people will be more apt to report these cases to the authorities as it is to present some data based research that having been a victim of CSA is not a sentence to a long life of dysfunctional suffering.

The reason why still comes back to Tom Young’s statement of “This had happened many times in Canada (workers molesting children), and that the girls get over it and ‘we’ can’t put the workers out, because we have so few workers, and need them so bad.”

Stepping back from an emotional response, you have criminal behavior being covered up and criminals being relocated based on the faulty logic that because "...the girls get over it..." it is not wrong and is acceptable behavior because the criminals are needed. Pointing out the faulty and criminal behavior might make a difference to others and stop them from following along. This is not a spiritual issue - it is a criminal issue.

As far as your comments of a more personal nature directed to me. You may call it emotion – I would call it passion. And, God help me, if the time comes in my life where I never feel this kind of emotion/passion, then I need to take myself off into the hereafter – whatever that may hold. So – absolutely no apologies for emotion (aka “passion”).

I was not saying that people should be emotionless/passionless. I meant that when evaluating emotional topics that the best results are arrived at by stepping back and attempting an emotionless evaluation of the situation at hand.

I will not be shamed by “clearly it does not involve looking at information presented without the distortion of emotion” .

To be quite clear, I do not find “rationality” a worthy God – even though that may be yours.

Each to their own. My experience has been that emotional driven data evaluation and decisions based on emotions frequently do not give the best or desired results. There is a reason why doctors do not treat people to whom they are close. There is also a reason why some doctors seem to be unfeeling and standoffish (wow - that is a recognized word!) - emotions can distort the objectiveness needed to provide optimal treatment.

I am still waiting for the CSA/other sexual abuse victims (other than Matisse and Clearday) to weigh in on this discussion

From what I have seen, the majority of victims who post their experiences here were those who have suffered long term harm. Very few have posted about putting it behind and moving forward. Bringing up the past may mean reliving the incident(s).

[matisse]

May 30, 2014 17:19:17 GMT -5 SharonArnold said:

I am still waiting for the CSA/other sexual abuse victims (other than Matisse and Clearday) to weigh in on this discussion.

Why? No one has suggested that CSA doesn't have long term and devastating effects on some victims. Why would you expect people who have experienced these to expose themselves yet again?

It is a very private matter that I have revealed, thinking it might bring some clarity to this discussion. But now I see that my CSA experience may not "carry weight" with readers like you.

[SharonArnold]

May 30, 2014 22:47:10 GMT -5 matisse said:

May 30, 2014 17:19:17 GMT -5 SharonArnold said:

I am still waiting for the CSA/other sexual abuse victims (other than Matisse and Clearday) to weigh in on this discussion.

Why? No one has suggested that CSA doesn't have long term and devastating effects on some victims. Why would you expect people who have experienced these to expose themselves yet again?

It is a very private matter that I have revealed, thinking it might bring some clarity to this discussion. But now I see that my CSA experience may not "carry weight" with readers like you.

Sorry, I was in no way discounting your contribution to the discussion. Quite the contrary. I was simply acknowledging that you and Clearday were ones that had weighed in.

And, of course no one should contribute who feels uncomfortable in doing so. That goes without saying.

[Deleted]

SharonArnold - I thought that I had already weighed in with my views on this matter. I am not particularly influenced by any research on CSA as I just speak from personal experience. The real victim was our daughter who was 14 at the time. We had brought up our two children to respect (even revere - which was not right) the workers. And our daughter did not fully understand what was happening at the time. Today she leads a normal happy married life but our two children went out of the Truth essentially because of what happened. And their relationship with us as their parents was badly damaged. My point is that this impacts on other family members also. My son still blames me for not going to the police when I knew what had happened. So I will carry with me my failure to spot what was going on until my dying day. Why did I not pick up the signs (why is he - the perpetrator - spending so much time in our home?) etc? In one sense I have been able to draw a line (I can't change the past) but the effects of the abuse linger on. This was far and away the worst thing ever to happen to us as a family.

[matisse]

May 30, 2014 23:52:00 GMT -5 SharonArnold said:

May 30, 2014 22:47:10 GMT -5 matisse said:

Why? No one has suggested that CSA doesn't have long term and devastating effects on some victims. Why would you expect people who have experienced these to expose themselves yet again?

It is a very private matter that I have revealed, thinking it might bring some clarity to this discussion. But now I see that my CSA experience may not "carry weight" with readers like you.

Sorry, I was in no way discounting your contribution to the discussion. Quite the contrary. I was simply acknowledging that you and Clearday were ones that had weighed in.

And, of course no one should contribute who feels uncomfortable in doing so. That goes without saying.

Are you looking, in particular, for contributions from CSA victims who have suffered lasting repercussions? The scientific data do not dismiss that this can happen.  But to "pile on" examples of people suffering long-term consequences does not render invalid the data that show that there are other CSA victims who do not suffer lasting repercussions.

And, just to state this again, at no point does Clancy suggest that CSA should not be considered criminal.  The criminality of CSA stands on its own, regardless of victim outcomes.

As I said before, I feel lucky that I worked with a therapist (mostly about 2x2-related things) who saw me as a grieving, but otherwise "whole" and healthy adult and didn't see any signs of "buried anger" about my experience in the hands of a bona fide sexual predator. IMO, Clancy's results do not dismiss victims who suffer lasting effects of CSA trauma. At the same time, it is helpful to me that her data also validate my long-term experience as a CSA victim.

Some here have declared that "Victims of CSA reject Clancy's conclusions."  I am here to say that it is not so "simple."  I am a CSA victim and I do not reject Clancy's conclusions.

[Deleted]

May 31, 2014 9:07:49 GMT -5 matisse said:

May 30, 2014 23:52:00 GMT -5 SharonArnold said:

Sorry, I was in no way discounting your contribution to the discussion. Quite the contrary. I was simply acknowledging that you and Clearday were ones that had weighed in.

And, of course no one should contribute who feels uncomfortable in doing so. That goes without saying.

Are you looking, in particular, for contributions from CSA victims who have suffered lasting repercussions? The scientific data do not dismiss that this can happen.  But to "pile on" examples of people suffering long-term consequences does not render invalid the data that show that there are other CSA victims who do not suffer lasting repercussions.

And, just to state this again, at no point does Clancy suggest that CSA should not be considered criminal.  The criminality of CSA stands on its own, regardless of victim outcomes.

As I said before, I feel lucky that I worked with a therapist (mostly about 2x2-related things) who saw me as a grieving, but otherwise "whole" and healthy adult and didn't see any signs of "buried anger" about my experience in the hands of a bona fide sexual predator. IMO, Clancy's results do not dismiss victims who suffer lasting effects of CSA trauma. At the same time, it is helpful to me that her data also validate my long-term experience as a CSA victim.

Some here have declared that "Victims of CSA reject Clancy's conclusions."  I am here to say that it is not so "simple."  I am a CSA victim and I do not reject Clancy's conclusions.

Do you agree with Clancy's conclusion that CSA rarely damages a child psychologically?

[rational]

May 31, 2014 7:13:34 GMT -5 finlandia said:

SharonArnold - I thought that I had already weighed in with my views on this matter. I am not particularly influenced by any research on CSA as I just speak from personal experience.

In this case the reasearch seems to support your family's experience.

The real victim was our daughter who was 14 at the time. We had brought up our two children to respect (even revere - which was not right) the workers. And our daughter did not fully understand what was happening at the time.

This was one of the central points made by the researchers. The events were not as traumatic to the young victims as the supportive adults imagined they would be.

Today she leads a normal happy married life but our two children went out of the Truth essentially because of what happened.

And, even with the specter of CSA in the background she is able to live a "normal happy married life".

My point is that this impacts on other family members also.

It is at this point where the family environment becomes more of a factor than the abuse. It is not faulting anyone but it is the normal reaction that one would expect from a caring family.

My son still blames me for not going to the police when I knew what had happened.

I don't know when this happened but this was in many cases the standard way this was dealt with. While it is the way that the criminal behavior can be stopped it also places a toll on the family. From a selfish point of view, reporting it does nothing that directly helps your family - the criminal behavior has already happened.

So I will carry with me my failure to spot what was going on until my dying day. Why did I not pick up the signs (why is he - the perpetrator - spending so much time in our home?) etc?

It is a matter of putting too much trust in people who we have given a place of special honor. The hurt is two fold - love ones are abused and people that you have put on a pedestal have proved not to be worthy of that status. Remember they are criminals.

In one sense I have been able to draw a line (I can't change the past) but the effects of the abuse linger on.

There should be a distinction. It sounds like the effects of the abuse were far less than the effects that the incident had in your family. It sounds like your daughter has dealt with the abuse in a very positive way bit, as a parent, you feel that you let her down and that is certainly understandable.

This was far and away the worst thing ever to happen to us as a family.

This is an interesting turn of phrase. You see the impact of the incident as a negative impact on the family but it is not the act of the actual abuse that you see as the most negative part. This is the point that Clancy and others were trying to make in their research. The effects these events have on the victim may well be less than the effects that the family members and others involved assign to the incidents. You are berating yourself for not seeing the danger and then not reporting it. But you did not turn your back on your daughter - you simply could have no way of knowing what was going on. Not with a trusted and revered member of the Truth. The fact that your children have left the F&W - they are dealing with the situation in their own way.
I am sorry that your daughter, you, and your family had to go through that ordeal.

[sharingtheriches]

May 31, 2014 7:13:34 GMT -5 finlandia said:

SharonArnold - I thought that I had already weighed in with my views on this matter. I am not particularly influenced by any research on CSA as I just speak from personal experience. The real victim was our daughter who was 14 at the time. We had brought up our two children to respect (even revere - which was not right) the workers. And our daughter did not fully understand what was happening at the time. Today she leads a normal happy married life but our two children went out of the Truth essentially because of what happened. And their relationship with us as their parents was badly damaged. My point is that this impacts on other family members also. My son still blames me for not going to the police when I knew what had happened. So I will carry with me my failure to spot what was going on until my dying day. Why did I not pick up the signs (why is he - the perpetrator - spending so much time in our home?) etc? In one sense I have been able to draw a line (I can't change the past) but the effects of the abuse linger on. This was far and away the worst thing ever to happen to us as a family.

I'm very sorry that the whole family suffered such losses as a family unit...however I'm sure you and many others know that children think that their parents should be able to "protect" them from harm, esp. within the perimeters of the home base.....This sounds like a tender child's reaction to the disappointment of the parents NOT providing that protection....and has been carried clear through into the adult lives of said children. Also as adults, and likely even as teens your children were able to ferret out the thing that they were taught to revere the workers regardless and they saw that as your mistake in not being able to provide that protection of them in the home base! Again, it is something that is harrowing for a child to go through and often children just are not able to put things in perspective for their psyche is not matured and more over, I've found that most 2x2 families do not teach children how to protect themselves from sexual predators.....and I know this comes from the workers saying that we are not to entertain worldly friends, etc So in that light perhaps parents are too trusting because they think the bad things are only in the world.

[matisse]

May 31, 2014 9:43:16 GMT -5 @clearday said:

May 31, 2014 9:07:49 GMT -5 matisse said:

Are you looking, in particular, for contributions from CSA victims who have suffered lasting repercussions? The scientific data do not dismiss that this can happen.  But to "pile on" examples of people suffering long-term consequences does not render invalid the data that show that there are other CSA victims who do not suffer lasting repercussions.

And, just to state this again, at no point does Clancy suggest that CSA should not be considered criminal.  The criminality of CSA stands on its own, regardless of victim outcomes.

As I said before, I feel lucky that I worked with a therapist (mostly about 2x2-related things) who saw me as a grieving, but otherwise "whole" and healthy adult and didn't see any signs of "buried anger" about my experience in the hands of a bona fide sexual predator. IMO, Clancy's results do not dismiss victims who suffer lasting effects of CSA trauma. At the same time, it is helpful to me that her data also validate my long-term experience as a CSA victim.

Some here have declared that "Victims of CSA reject Clancy's conclusions."  I am here to say that it is not so "simple."  I am a CSA victim and I do not reject Clancy's conclusions.

Do you agree with Clancy's conclusion that CSA rarely damages a child psychologically?

Given the set of definitions Clancy chose to use in her methods of evaluation,  yes, I agree with her that this is what the data suggest.  I think it is inappropriate to "lift" the conclusion out of the context of the research methods and more extended discussion as you have done here.  Taken as a whole, the work withstands scrutiny, and it opens up what I believe is an important thread of discussion that many have resisted opening.

[pianoman2]

I think that since we are all individuals, everyone has to experience things and the repercussions from their own view. Also circumstances would weigh in.
The ugly thing about how this has gone on in the 2x2s, in my opinion, the worst, it is from the fear factor of "rocking the boat" with workers. That is not the only factor, I know as many feel guilty like they did something wrong and don't want to expose what happened as they feel that guilt.

I know this goes on in other church groups, so I am not singling out the 2x2s. I do feel that they have had a worse track record anyway, and in the Catholic church, my understanding is that some of the victims have received remuneration for the damage. Money does not cure but it helps to acknowledge that things were wrong and can help in those seeking therapy.

[Deleted]

Thanks, everyone, for your comments. I should also have added that the childrens anger was intensified because they knew that we had reported this matter to the overseer. Had an hour long meeting with him some years ago. And he did nothing whatsoever about it (apart from cover it up). To rub salt into the wounds, when another worker mentioned the abuse to the same overseer a year or so ago, he replied "That's the first I have heard about it"! The perpetrator is now dead.

[rational]

May 31, 2014 9:43:16 GMT -5 @clearday said:

Do you agree with Clancy's conclusion that CSA rarely damages a child psychologically?

That would be a tough question to answer since that is not one of Clancy's conclusions.
You continually misrepresent research with which you do not agree.

[rational]

May 31, 2014 10:29:20 GMT -5 sharingtheriches said:

I'm very sorry that the whole family suffered such losses as a family unit...however I'm sure you and many others know that children think that their parents should be able to "protect" them from harm, esp. within the perimeters of the home base.....This sounds like a tender child's reaction to the disappointment of the parents NOT providing that protection....and has been carried clear through into the adult lives of said children.

How did you reach these conclusions? I did not read anywhere that the daughter did not feel protected. Nor the son. The son thought the incident should have been reported. That has little to do with protection. And it was stated that the daughter, the actual victim, was married and had a happy life.

Also as adults, and likely even as teens your children were able to ferret out the thing that they were taught to revere the workers regardless and they saw that as your mistake in not being able to provide that protection of them in the home base!

Another variation of a conclusion not supported by what was posted.

Again, it is something that is harrowing for a child to go through and often children just are not able to put things in perspective for their psyche is not matured and more over, I've found that most 2x2 families do not teach children how to protect themselves from sexual predators.

Where was it said that this was harrowing?

The mother raised the children and provided them with what every mother would provide to their children. Criminals who molest children are usually very good at what they do and usually fool a lot of people before they are caught. To continue to blame the mother for "not being able to provide that protection of them in the home base!" is simply wrong and borders on cruelty.

If I were a theist I would say "Thank God the daughter is doing well." and then say "The mother in in my prayers and I pray that she will see that she did all that can be expected of any parent."

But I am not a theist but an unfeeling atheist who still is glad your daughter is doing well. That fact alone points to the excellence of the parenting skills found in your family and the support she must have been able to draw on from the family. I clearly cannot change how you feel about any of this but from what you have posted you did a wonderful job.

[Deleted]

May 31, 2014 10:58:51 GMT -5 matisse said:

May 31, 2014 9:43:16 GMT -5 @clearday said:

Do you agree with Clancy's conclusion that CSA rarely damages a child psychologically?

Given the set of definitions Clancy chose to use in her methods of evaluation,  yes, I agree with her that this is what the data suggest.  I think it is inappropriate to "lift" the conclusion out of the context of the research methods and more extended discussion as you have done here.  Taken as a whole, the work withstands scrutiny, and it opens up what I believe is an important thread of discussion that many have resisted opening.

I'm not lifting anything out of context any more than what Clancy herself has done. She stated in an interview that psychological damage was rare and made no attempt to qualify what she meant by that. If she wasn't conveying what the typical person would understand to be psychological damage but had a non-typical set of criteria or definitions, I would expect that she ought to be responsible to convey that in an interview. On the basis of her interview alone, it's little wonder there has been such a huge backlash against her publicly stated conclusions.......let alone a broad rejection by the Harvard academics.

So far, no one has presented any information that indicates there is anything in her work that is worthwhile investing the time to read, including Clancy's own interview on the topic.

[Deleted]

May 31, 2014 14:25:05 GMT -5 rational said:

May 31, 2014 9:43:16 GMT -5 @clearday said:

Do you agree with Clancy's conclusion that CSA rarely damages a child psychologically?

That would be a tough question to answer since that is not one of Clancy's conclusions.
You continually misrepresent research with which you do not agree.

Obviously I am having difficulty comprehending English these days:

Clancy quotation: "it rarely physically or psychologically damages the child"

That is a direct quotation of her actual words, not a representation or a misrepresentation or interpretation of what she was saying.

Perhaps you can correct Clancy's words. I have no interest in misrepresenting her own words.

It's obviously a confusing conclusion if you don't see it in Clancy's work and matisse does.....and agrees with it in the manner in which it was presented by Clancy.

[matisse]

May 31, 2014 17:13:39 GMT -5 @clearday said:

May 31, 2014 10:58:51 GMT -5 matisse said:

Given the set of definitions Clancy chose to use in her methods of evaluation,  yes, I agree with her that this is what the data suggest.  I think it is inappropriate to "lift" the conclusion out of the context of the research methods and more extended discussion as you have done here.  Taken as a whole, the work withstands scrutiny, and it opens up what I believe is an important thread of discussion that many have resisted opening.

I'm not lifting anything out of context any more than what Clancy herself has done. She stated in an interview that psychological damage was rare and made no attempt to qualify what she meant by that. If she wasn't conveying what the typical person would understand to be psychological damage but had a non-typical set of criteria or definitions, I would expect that she ought to be responsible to convey that in an interview. On the basis of her interview alone, it's little wonder there has been such a huge backlash against her publicly stated conclusions.......let alone a broad rejection by the Harvard academics.

So far, no one has presented any information that indicates there is anything in her work that is worthwhile investing the time to read, including Clancy's own interview on the topic.

I don't know which interview you are referring to. I was misconstruing the conclusions of Clancy's research as badly as you were. This is a fresh link to the pdf version of her book, which I am in the process of reading in full:

The Trauma Myth

Please read the Preface, pp iv through xv.   In it she gives explains what inspired her to undertake her research.  The font is large so there are not that many words per page to read. I don't want to try to paraphrase or cut and paste from it.

[emy]

May 31, 2014 10:58:51 GMT -5 matisse said:

...Taken as a whole, the work withstands scrutiny, and it opens up what I believe is an important thread of discussion that many have resisted opening.

I agree. I would like to hear more from people who feel their experience has not colored every aspect of their lives. I'd also like to hear more about the process that enabled them to mostly leave it behind. I think that would be helpful to victims who have that as a goal. I also wonder if some who have gone on feel that they must be "weird" because the experience hasn't devastated them beyond the event(s).

[Deleted]

May 31, 2014 17:57:12 GMT -5 matisse said:

May 31, 2014 17:13:39 GMT -5 @clearday said:

I'm not lifting anything out of context any more than what Clancy herself has done. She stated in an interview that psychological damage was rare and made no attempt to qualify what she meant by that. If she wasn't conveying what the typical person would understand to be psychological damage but had a non-typical set of criteria or definitions, I would expect that she ought to be responsible to convey that in an interview. On the basis of her interview alone, it's little wonder there has been such a huge backlash against her publicly stated conclusions.......let alone a broad rejection by the Harvard academics.

So far, no one has presented any information that indicates there is anything in her work that is worthwhile investing the time to read, including Clancy's own interview on the topic.

I don't know which interview you are referring to. I was misconstruing the conclusions of Clancy's research as badly as you were. This is a fresh link to the pdf version of her book, which I am in the process of reading in full:

The Trauma Myth

Please read the Preface, pp iv through xv.   In it she gives explains what inspired her to undertake her research.  The font is large so there are not that many words per page to read. I don't want to try to paraphrase or cut and paste from it.

I am simply quoting Clancy and it seems difficult to misconstrue what she says unless she is speaking in a code that I simply don't understand:

Clancy quotation: "it rarely physically or psychologically damages the child". I really don't see anything particularly unambiguous about that statement and I think she is quite right regarding the physical part of it.

Is there something in the Preface that contradicts the interview quotation above?

[Deleted]

May 31, 2014 18:03:30 GMT -5 emy said:

May 31, 2014 10:58:51 GMT -5 matisse said:

...Taken as a whole, the work withstands scrutiny, and it opens up what I believe is an important thread of discussion that many have resisted opening.

I agree. I would like to hear more from people who feel their experience has not colored every aspect of their lives. I'd also like to hear more about the process that enabled them to mostly leave it behind. I think that would be helpful to victims who have that as a goal. I also wonder if some who have gone on feel that they must be "weird" because the experience hasn't devastated them beyond the event(s).

There are a lot of resources out there which provide victims ways of healing the wounds of child sexual abuse. If it ever becomes a popular idea that child sexual abuse causes no damages to the child, or as the Raelians believe, is often beneficial to the child, then there will never be any healing, but yet another abuse placed on children.

[SharonArnold]

Now, I really need to recuse myself from this discussion. I do not have any personal experience at being sexually abused as either a child or an adult. Indeed, I cannot recount even a single experience where I have been inappropriately approached! Thinkin…thinkin… Nope.

So why can’t I shut up?

(Yeah, I know I have a history of tilting at windmills…)

What I find so totally unacceptable is any thought that … gee children get over it, it’s no biggie – and what the workers are doing is somehow okay because their mission on the planet is so much grander than the rest of us.

I know about dealing with trauma. I’ve had mine, though it was not of a CSA nature. I have ended up in counselling – with my counsellor saying “ You are a very strong and healthy person”. I have ended up in a support group, with everyone watching me – saying – I can’t believe that you are for real – with the speed that you are dealing with/ going through things. Even 14 years later, when I meet up with members of my original support group I know they are still watching me and saying “Are you for real?”

Yes, I so totally get that people may deal with CSA that it no longer has any real repercussions on the life they live. Good on you! (And this is something that is really important.) In 2X2ism, when I was growing up, (at least) there was kind of a “damaged goods” mindset. Way past time to kick this to the curb.

I get that.

It’s not that way for everyone.

And even if people have found ways of coping and of dealing with what has happened to them – IT IN NO WAY MAKES THIS OKAY OR EVEN MARGINALLY ACCEPTABLE!!!!!!! IN ANY SHAPE OR FORM!!!!!

What I can go ballistic over here is – IT DOESN'T MATTER HOW WELL OR NOT WELL SOME MAY DEAL WITH WHAT HAS HAPPENED TO THEM! – This should NEVER happen!!!!!

No matter how well someone copes with it - it does not take away from MY responsibility in ensuring that it does not happen to someone else. In no way does it remove responsibility from 2X2 leadership in prostrating themselves in acknowledging past wrongs or in ensuring that this kind of thing never happens again the future. (Take a page from Pope Francis.)

THAT is the point here !!!

[matisse]

May 31, 2014 18:03:30 GMT -5 emy said:

May 31, 2014 10:58:51 GMT -5 matisse said:

...Taken as a whole, the work withstands scrutiny, and it opens up what I believe is an important thread of discussion that many have resisted opening.

I agree. I would like to hear more from people who feel their experience has not colored every aspect of their lives. I'd also like to hear more about the process that enabled them to mostly leave it behind. I think that would be helpful to victims who have that as a goal. I also wonder if some who have gone on feel that they must be "weird" because the experience hasn't devastated them beyond the event(s).

I hesitate to try to represent Clancy since I misrepresented her work earlier today.  The preface to her book, The Trauma Myth (that I have not yet read in full) is informative.  She describes an encounter with a CSA victim whose description of his experience of CSA contradicted what she had been taught that CSA is always traumatic.  As she investigated further, she found many others CSA victims whose accounts of their experience of the CSA as it happened also contradicted the "Experts."  For Clancy's detractors here on TMB, she clearly describes acts of CSA as being "vile and, to date, outrageously common crimes."  She also clearly states that just because the experience of CSA at the time was not perceived as being traumatic does not mean the victim will not experience negative fallout later (for a variety of reasons, not always a direct consequence of the CSA).

Speaking for myself, yes, I did not have any sense of trauma at the time the abuse was happening.  I liked my abuser....even thought I loved him.  I scratched my head about this later, and it would have been helpful to know that this is not an uncommon experience among CSA victims.  Despite my sense that I have suffered no lasting negative effects from the experience, I am very aware that some readers here on TMB might judge me harshly for not immediately fleeing the unexpected sexual advances of this much older (and very charming and well-liked) man, never mind that I came back for more.  Some may dismiss my story as not being a true example of CSA, since I ended up wanting it to continue.  One of the things Clancy asserts is that when professionals and organizations "advocating" for CSA victims insist that CSA is always "traumatic" to the victim, they marginalize CSA victims who did not experience the CSA at the time it was happening as being traumatic.  As I mentioned earlier, I feel fortunate to have landed with a supportive and non-judgemental therapist who I felt completely safe opening up to.  

[matisse]

May 31, 2014 18:18:10 GMT -5 @clearday said:

May 31, 2014 17:57:12 GMT -5 matisse said:

I don't know which interview you are referring to. I was misconstruing the conclusions of Clancy's research as badly as you were. This is a fresh link to the pdf version of her book, which I am in the process of reading in full:

The Trauma Myth

Please read the Preface, pp iv through xv.   In it she gives explains what inspired her to undertake her research.  The font is large so there are not that many words per page to read. I don't want to try to paraphrase or cut and paste from it.

I am simply quoting Clancy and it seems difficult to misconstrue what she says unless she is speaking in a code that I simply don't understand:

Clancy quotation: "it rarely physically or psychologically damages the child". I really don't see anything particularly unambiguous about that statement and I think she is quite right regarding the physical part of it.

Is there something in the Preface that contradicts the interview quotation above?

What you are stuck on is not consistent with what I have read so far of Clancy's writing.

I am recommending that you read the Preface.  If you choose to do this, it will be a small investment of your time and I expect you will emerge with a different understanding of Clancy and her work than you have now.

[faune]

May 31, 2014 12:55:44 GMT -5 finlandia said:

Thanks, everyone, for your comments. I should also have added that the childrens anger was intensified because they knew that we had reported this matter to the overseer. Had an hour long meeting with him some years ago. And he did nothing whatsoever about it (apart from cover it up). To rub salt into the wounds, when another worker mentioned the abuse to the same overseer a year or so ago, he replied "That's the first I have heard about it"! The perpetrator is now dead.

Finlandia ~ I started a new thread today regarding CSA within the Vatican and opened this thread with a 40 minute documentary which is very intense in content.  It shares the feelings of victims years after the incident has occurred and also the thoughts and "grooming schemes" of the perpetrators (priests) and how they manipulate the situation to achieve their desired end. 

The reason I shared this documentary is that I see a similar pattern between how the 2x2's have dealt with CSA and the RCC.   Both have employed cover-up, secrecy, and intimidation to keep the crime of CSA under wraps.  Unfortunately, the Church is not equipped to deal with this heinous crime against children and the long list of victims over the years is testimony of its failure to produce any change.

In fact,  it's ineptness at handling the situation professionally has contributed to numerous scandals and many innocent people being hurt over time from their approach to such crimes.  This documentary is quite an eye opener and tear jerker at the same time, regarding how CSA affects a person's life.  Without proper counseling, the effects of CSA are never addressed  and remain buried in one's memory, much like a cancer of the soul.   As a church facilitator in the past for a group that dealt with such hurts from the past,  I can say that sexual offenses leave the deepest wounds in one's psyche!   That's why I believe it's essential to report these perpetrators to the proper criminal authorities to curtail their actions and aid in protecting others from similar abuse.  Personally, I feel that would be the right thing to do regardless who's to blame for CSA ~ clergy, family member, or a total stranger.   Perhaps if more friends had reported these perverted individuals to the proper authorities instead of the Church hierarchy,  CSA would have been stopped in its tracks instead of going undetected for years due to cover-up and secrecy?  

professing.proboards.com/thread/22134/crimes-vatican-documentary

topdocumentaryfilms.com/sex-crimes-and-the-vatican/   (Sex Crimes and the Vatican ~ Documentary)

[emy]

Please understand that I do believe CSA should never be ignored or hidden. Those who commit such acts should not be excused. But I do think it's important to hear the other side of the story as well.

[jscc1]

Emy,as an ex victim of decades ago,and you would have read such posts as "filandia",her family horrid experience. Then look at the fact that pedophilia is a mental disorder,there can be no other side of the story as down the line,PERPETRATOR AND VICTIM. After being found out they are always remorseful,one of Chris's remorses will be that he branded one of his victims as a trouble and story maker,now he by pleading guilty to his actions she spoke of,he was the untruthfull story teller.If a person claims or others claim they are not pedophiles with the disorder,then there is no excuse it says their perverted acts were because of an inherent disorder. Look at Ernie Barry 12 known victims pleaded guilty to one,instead of dropping before the judge and honestly say "Judge I have sinned greatly I will tell all as honest as I can remember,and your honor my future I leave to your discretion.It must leave me before I stand before my Maker and His Judgements". We would all on every side of this have to accept and applaud such a great confession. So instead Wendy Southy,psychologist to top crims and underworld figures, was paid $1000s a day to protect his butt and the supposed "truth minstries" reputation. Sadly because these perpetrators are so often nice to meet and speak to,that this is their first trap they set.