Chris Chandler pleads guilty to CSA-March 20, 2014

[rational]

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.

Clancy's conclusions were the ones presented in her book. If you want to discuss interview dialogue please post the dialogue. It is difficult to imagine someone stating a conclusion in a dialogue.

She did define many times the narrow definition that she was using for trauma. She defined it because it was non-typical.

And from your comments It seems clear that you are commenting on a work without having read it. It is easy to see why you so frequently arrive at the wrong conclusions.

The conclusion chapter of Clancy's book is 20+ pages and no where in it does she reach any of the conclusions that you have claimed.

[rational]

Jun 1, 2014 0:41:37 GMT -5 jscc1 said:

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.

You should try to understand that it is doubtful that the criminal who abused finlandia's daughter suffered from pedophilia. He was a criminal who abused children.

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.

He is a criminal. Why would you expect his to tell the truth regarding his activities?

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.

There is no proof of an inherent disorder any more that you could claim that a thief has an inherent disorder. They are criminals and committed criminal acts.

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".

Again, you are equating the behavior of a criminal and making it a spiritual issue. Criminals try to get the best they can from the courts. If the court was agreeable to allowing a guilty plea for one count and dropping the charges on the other 11 it is the court you should be angry about. The court is a body that rules on legal issues and, hopefully, they will never have the power to rule on the various things that evern group in their jurisdiction considers to be a sin.

We would all on every side of this have to accept and applaud such a great confession.

But what would that actually accomplish?

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.

It sounds like you are least beginning to understand how the criminal mind of a child abuser works.

[rational]

May 31, 2014 19:18:03 GMT -5 SharonArnold said:

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.

None of the research being presented and discussed here reaches a conclusion even close to what you are saying. As far as I can see it is you and CD that have jumped to this conclusion without reading the information.

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?”

Everyone deals with trauma in life. How it is dealt with is different for everyone.

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.

It is this "damaged goods" concept that actually continue to hard the abused. How many times does a child who has been abused have to answer the question of if they feel 'damaged' before they will begin to believe there is something wrong with them if they do not feel damaged? How many people will they be able to sit with who are claiming to be able to "reclaim" memories before they will begin to believe they are actually reclaiming memories and not repeating what the interviewer is telling them they should remember.

It’s not that way for everyone.

And not one of the people actually doing and publishing the research has made this claim.

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!!!!!

And all of the people doing and publishing the research that I presented have made this claim over and over again. But people have to actually read the studies to read those claims. Or, as has happened here, just make up claims and attribute them to the people who you simply do not care to listen to because they are showing data that does not support your own foregone conclusions.

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!!!!!

What you do not seem to understand that the best way to help the victims and prevent future victims is to base actions on verified data and not continuing to do as has been done in the past. The conviction rates are up but abuse continues. What has been done in the past isn't working. Typing about it in all upper case letters is not the solution. Discounting research without taking the time to read and understand it accomplished nothing. In fact it acts as a deterrent from moving forward.

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.)

And you think the way to do that is to dismiss any research, well supported research, that disagrees with what you, and many others believe? How does it help?

THAT is the point here !!!

So your point is that it shouldn't ever happen again. Great. I wonder if there is any reading here who does not think child abuse of all kinds should not happen? It sounds like the contestants at the Miss America contest "All I want is world peace."




[/quote]

[Deleted]

Jun 1, 2014 6:31:02 GMT -5 rational 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.

Clancy's conclusions were the ones presented in her book. If you want to discuss interview dialogue please post the dialogue. It is difficult to imagine someone stating a conclusion in a dialogue.

She did define many times the narrow definition that she was using for trauma. She defined it because it was non-typical.

And from your comments It seems clear that you are commenting on a work without having read it. It is easy to see why you so frequently arrive at the wrong conclusions.

The conclusion chapter of Clancy's book is 20+ pages and no where in it does she reach any of the conclusions that you have claimed.

This is not MY conclusion, this is Susan Clancy's conclusion that YOU posted. I am commenting on HER words that YOU posted. Don't shift it to MY conclusion, I am only going by what SHE said. If she misspoke, then correct her words from whatever source you choose.....like the book you insinuate you have read. This is how Clancy describes her book conclusion in her own words. Have you actually read the book and if so, why are you disagreeing with Clancy's own description of her conclusion?

Also note that you have twisted Clancy's words. Her quote was "rare psychological damage" and you have shifted it to " narrow definition that she was using for trauma". If you wish to use the book to explain what she means by rare psychological damage, feel free to do so. Or, continue to dodge the facts of what she actually said.

[Deleted]

Rational, do you agree that education of children on sexual abuse is likely too complicated for them to grasp and therefore unfair for them to expect them to? If so, what science do you have to back that up?

[Deleted]

NAMBLA, the North American Man/Boy Love Association is supporting Clancy's work as a step in the right direction.

"As such, I believe her research, even if partly flawed, is a very important step in the right direction. How long society will take to accept reality is quite a different question."




Information on NAMBLA:

"For 30 years, NAMBLA has been the primary voice testifying to the benevolent aspects of man/boy love."

[matisse]

Jun 1, 2014 7:51:36 GMT -5 @clearday said:

NAMBLA, the North American Man/Boy Love Association is supporting Clancy's work as a step in the right direction.

"As such, I believe her research, even if partly flawed, is a very important step in the right direction. How long society will take to accept reality is quite a different question."




Information on NAMBLA:

"For 30 years, NAMBLA has been the primary voice testifying to the benevolent aspects of man/boy love."

Sounds like you have not yet read the Preface to Clancy's book that I suggested to you.

If you had, it would be no surprise to you that NAMBDLA refers to Clancy's work as being "flawed."

[Deleted]

Jun 1, 2014 11:03:26 GMT -5 matisse said:

Jun 1, 2014 7:51:36 GMT -5 @clearday said:

NAMBLA, the North American Man/Boy Love Association is supporting Clancy's work as a step in the right direction.

"As such, I believe her research, even if partly flawed, is a very important step in the right direction. How long society will take to accept reality is quite a different question."




Information on NAMBLA:

"For 30 years, NAMBLA has been the primary voice testifying to the benevolent aspects of man/boy love."

Sounds like you have not yet read the Preface to Clancy's book that I suggested to you.

If you had, it would be no surprise to you that NAMBDLA refers to Clancy's work as being "flawed."

I didn't express any surprise at NAMBLA's endorsement or flaws identified. I am just reporting their views on Clancy's ideas.

I have read most of the book.

[matisse]

Jun 1, 2014 11:26:50 GMT -5 @clearday said:

Jun 1, 2014 11:03:26 GMT -5 matisse said:

Sounds like you have not yet read the Preface to Clancy's book that I suggested to you.

If you had, it would be no surprise to you that NAMBDLA refers to Clancy's work as being "flawed."

I didn't express any surprise at NAMBLA's endorsement or flaws identified. I am just reporting their views on Clancy's ideas.

I have read most of the book.

It seems a little bit like a misogynistic organization endorsing research that shows that men and women are different.

[rational]

Jun 1, 2014 7:30:11 GMT -5 @clearday said:

This is not MY conclusion, this is Susan Clancy's conclusion that YOU posted.

The solution is simple. Point out where I made the statement and I will correct it if necessary and apologize for the misstatement. Just to be clear, the 'conclusion' we are discussing is:

She stated in an interview that psychological damage was rare and made no attempt to qualify what she meant by that.

I am commenting on HER words that YOU posted. Don't shift it to MY conclusion, I am only going by what SHE said. If she misspoke, then correct her words from whatever source you choose.....like the book you insinuate you have read.

I am still trying to find out where the words came from.

This is how Clancy describes her book conclusion in her own words.

Where?

Have you actually read the book and if so, why are you disagreeing with Clancy's own description of her conclusion?

I am waiting for you to post the quote to which you are referring. The conclusion in Clancy's book is 20 pages long. Not a huge time investment for anyone. And since the statement you have posted is not contained in the conclusion of her book (pages 179-206) it is difficult to address.

Also note that you have twisted Clancy's words. Her quote was "rare psychological damage" and you have shifted it to " narrow definition that she was using for trauma". If you wish to use the book to explain what she means by rare psychological damage, feel free to do so. Or, continue to dodge the facts of what she actually said.

You will need to provide the quote you are claiming.

I could guess you are referring to:

Clancy: Forcefully! As I hope to have made clear in the book, sexual abuse is never OK. No matter what the circumstances are, or how it impacts the victims, sexual abuse is an atrocious, despicable crime. Just because it rarely physically or psychologically damages the child does not mean it is OK. Harmfulness is not the same thing as wrongfulness. And why is it wrong? Because children are incapable of consent.
Children do not understand the meaning or significance of sexual behavior. Adults know this, and thus they are taking advantage of innocent children — using their knowledge to manipulate children into providing sexual pleasure. Sick.

But you posted:

Her quote was "rare psychological damage"

and that was not contained within the post I guessed at.

The rare physical or psychological damage mentioned is in no way a conclusion any more than saying "Just because it is rare for children to die from neglect it does not mean it is OK" is not a conclusion as to the number of children who die from neglect. It is just stating that the outcome the act does not determine if it is right or wrong.

[Deleted]

Jun 1, 2014 12:03:31 GMT -5 rational said:

Jun 1, 2014 7:30:11 GMT -5 @clearday said:

This is not MY conclusion, this is Susan Clancy's conclusion that YOU posted.

The solution is simple. Point out where I made the statement and I will correct it if necessary and apologize for the misstatement.

I said it was HER statement that YOU posted. Not YOUR statement. No apologies are necessary. I am just commenting on the facts. Is this really this complicated?

Just to be clear, the 'conclusion' we are discussing is:

She stated in an interview that psychological damage was rare and made no attempt to qualify what she meant by that.

I thought this was crystal clear, we are discussing her statement that : " it rarely physically or psychologically damages the child " which were her words in the interview that you posted. It's not your fault that she said this. She said it, and if you have any interest in explaining it, go for it. Otherwise, it is what it is.

I am commenting on HER words that YOU posted. Don't shift it to MY conclusion, I am only going by what SHE said. If she misspoke, then correct her words from whatever source you choose.....like the book you insinuate you have read.

I am still trying to find out where the words came from.

Go back on your postings and you will find it. You posted it, not me.

This is how Clancy describes her book conclusion in her own words.

Where?

Have you actually read the book and if so, why are you disagreeing with Clancy's own description of her conclusion?

I am waiting for you to post the quote to which you are referring. The conclusion in Clancy's book is 20 pages long. Not a huge time investment for anyone. And since the statement you have posted is not contained in the conclusion of her book (pages 179-206) it is difficult to address.

It is what you posted for discussion. It is what the discussion has been based on so far, not the book.

You have contributed nothing for discussion from the book. When you do, we can discuss statements from the book.

Also note that you have twisted Clancy's words. Her quote was "rare psychological damage" and you have shifted it to " narrow definition that she was using for trauma". If you wish to use the book to explain what she means by rare psychological damage, feel free to do so. Or, continue to dodge the facts of what she actually said.

You will need to provide the quote you are claiming.

I could guess you are referring to:

Clancy: Forcefully! As I hope to have made clear in the book, sexual abuse is never OK. No matter what the circumstances are, or how it impacts the victims, sexual abuse is an atrocious, despicable crime. Just because it rarely physically or psychologically damages the child does not mean it is OK. Harmfulness is not the same thing as wrongfulness. And why is it wrong? Because children are incapable of consent.
Children do not understand the meaning or significance of sexual behavior. Adults know this, and thus they are taking advantage of innocent children — using their knowledge to manipulate children into providing sexual pleasure. Sick.

But you posted:

Her quote was "rare psychological damage"

That was a paraphrase of the quote but you can use that excuse for being unable or unwilling to respond if you like. I posted the actual quote several times "it rarely physically or psychologically damages the child". Would you say that she is conveying "rare psychological damages" or not?

and that was not contained within the post I guessed at.

No, but you could have actually read the quote I posted several times and gone back to the interview that you posted.

The rare physical or psychological damage mentioned is in no way a conclusion any more than saying "Just because it is rare for children to die from neglect it does not mean it is OK" is not a conclusion as to the number of children who die from neglect. It is just stating that the outcome the act does not determine if it is right or wrong.

No, what she is saying that "just because CSA rarely damages a child psychologically, that does not mean it is OK". She means exactly what she says. It is unambiguous. A full explanation is right in the book.

Have you actually read the book? At first I thought it might be a misquote in the interview and was hoping you would clear it up since you insinuate you have read the book and denied that she did not say this in the book. Your defence was to belittle anyone who hadn't read the book rather than explain it with facts. Now that I have read most of the book since answers were not forthcoming, it is clear that the interview accurately portrays her views in the book. She is not contradicting herself.

It should be no surprise that the Raelians and NAMBLA endorse her work, and no surprise at the backlash against her conclusions from academic sources. If you have read the book, you may need to read it again, and also get to understand the agenda of the Raelians and NAMBLA, and how Clancy's work fits into their agendum.

[Deleted]

Jun 1, 2014 11:52:08 GMT -5 matisse said:

Jun 1, 2014 11:26:50 GMT -5 @clearday said:

I didn't express any surprise at NAMBLA's endorsement or flaws identified. I am just reporting their views on Clancy's ideas.

I have read most of the book.

It seems a little bit like a misogynistic organization endorsing research that shows that men and women are different.

NAMBLA isn't misogynistic as far as I know but I suppose that is possible. They primarily promote the beneficial effects of man/boy love, including sexual acts. They advocate that consent laws are unjust and harmful.

[matisse]

From Rational's recent post:

Clancy: Forcefully! As I hope to have made clear in the book, sexual abuse is never OK. No matter what the circumstances are, or how it impacts the victims, sexual abuse is an atrocious, despicable crime. Just because it rarely physically or psychologically damages the child does not mean it is OK. Harmfulness is not the same thing as wrongfulness. And why is it wrong? Because children are incapable of consent.
Children do not understand the meaning or significance of sexual behavior. Adults know this, and thus they are taking advantage of innocent children — using their knowledge to manipulate children into providing sexual pleasure. Sick.

This does not sound like ANY kind of endorsement of the agenda of NAMBLA, regardless of NAMBLA's stance on Clancy's work. It is clear to me from these words that Clancy does not in any way endorse the sexual abuse of children.

Again, to me the objection to Clancy's research findings seems a bit like objecting to research that uncovers a pattern of differences between the structures of male and female brains just because misogynists might use the results to justify discriminating against women.

[matisse]

Jun 1, 2014 12:40:57 GMT -5 @clearday said:

Jun 1, 2014 11:52:08 GMT -5 matisse said:

It seems a little bit like a misogynistic organization endorsing research that shows that men and women are different.

NAMBLA isn't misogynistic as far as I know but I suppose that is possible. They primarily promote the beneficial effects of man/boy love, including sexual acts. They advocate that consent laws are unjust and harmful.

I didn't say that NAMBLA is misogynistic.  I know what the organization is and I do not support their agenda.

[emy]

Jun 1, 2014 0:41:37 GMT -5 jscc1 said:

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. ...

Apparently there is another side of the story... from those whose lives were not devastated, in spite of suffering abuse. Please be aware that not all child molesters suffer from pedophilia.

[SharonArnold]

So, Rat, did you post the link to the Raelian article for maximum shock effect? de.raelpress.org/news.php?item.177.1

There are plenty of other reviews of Clancy’s book to choose from.

I admit, I am a skimmer here and very rarely click on external links. I always figure that if there is something worth considering, and people cannot clearly and succinctly outline it in their post, then it is not worthwhile to click on the link. You, yourself, if my memory/perception is correct, have expressed a similar viewpoint in terms of youtube videos.

Now, I am not a psychologist – not even close. (However, I might say that the single psychology course I took in university, that it was the first text book that I ever read simply for my own enjoyment/edification. I also got a reasonably impressive 98% as a final mark in the course. I have always said that if I would ever go back to school for –yet, another- degree that I would choose psychology.)

I think most people are familiar with Stockholm syndrome. If they are not, here is the basics from Wiki:

“Stockholm syndrome, or capture-bonding, is a psychological phenomenon in which hostages express empathy and sympathy and have positive feelings toward their captors, sometimes to the point of defending and identifying with them. These feelings are generally considered irrational in light of the danger or risk endured by the victims, who essentially mistake a lack of abuse from their captors for an act of kindness.[1][2] The FBI's Hostage Barricade Database System shows that roughly 8% of victims show evidence of Stockholm syndrome.[3]

Stockholm syndrome can be seen as a form of traumatic bonding, which does not necessarily require a hostage scenario, but which describes "strong emotional ties that develop between two persons where one person intermittently harasses, beats, threatens, abuses, or intimidates the other."[4] One commonly used hypothesis to explain the effect of Stockholm syndrome is based on Freudian theory. It suggests that the bonding is the individual's response to trauma in becoming a victim. Identifying with the aggressor is one way that the ego defends itself. When a victim believes the same values as the aggressor, they cease to be a threat.”

(I tell my husband that the extreme slavishness that our dog (border collie) exhibits in trying to please is simply a form of Stockholm syndrome.)

It strikes me that there has to be a similar sort of syndrome in terms of CSA. Whether this is recognized or named as yet – I wouldn’t know – but it strikes me that you (i.e., Rat) might be in a position to further enlighten us.

For other skimmers, non-link clickers here, this is Clancy’s definition of trauma: “It is either objectively life threatening when it occurs (like getting shot at) or subjectively results in the same kind of intense fear, horror, or helplessness that objectively life-threatening events arouse.”

She goes on to say “According to the dominant theoretical framework, sexual abuse, like other traumatic experiences, damages victims because it is a frightening, horrifying, overwhelming, or painful event when it happens."

I have to trust her that this is how professionals in the field view it. But to me, coming at it from a more common sense sort of position – I know (and have always known) that it is not always traumatizing to an individual when it happens. THAT is a no brainer to anyone with a modicum of common sense.

As she freely admits: “Not only is sexual abuse common, but it is damaging to those who experience it. Adults who were sexually abused as children (compared to people who were not) report a startling range of problems, including, but not limited to, mood disorders (like depression), anxiety disorders (like posttraumatic stress disorder), personality disorders, relationship and sexual problems, eating disorders, self-mutilation, alcohol and drug abuse, and even psychosis. Although no specific pattern of signs or symptoms exists—not every victim is affected in the same way to the same degree—analysis of data from both clinical and nonclinical samples reveals strong and consistent associations between the experience of early sexual contact with an adult and a host of adverse adult outcomes. The most conservative synopsis of the situation would be that sexual abuse is a significant risk factor for a wide range of adult psychological problems and disorders.”

For an ordinary person whose tribe (aka the 2X2’s) has a strong cultural undercurrent endorsing ” 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.” - it doesn’t matter much at what point the trauma happens or the reason why. (We don’t care.) It only matters that it does happen and that IT MUST BE STOPPED. (Caps are for emphasis, and Yes, I am shouting.) (Though there are visions of Miss America and world peace here, according to Rat.)

I think it is pretty clear that Clancy has got on the wrong side of many mainstream researchers. Indeed, from my brief perusal of her work, she kind of strikes me as the National Enquirer of social science. As a researcher, it is your responsibility to frame things in terms that others are readily able to understand. If you are using an narrow definition of, say, something like “trauma” which is readily only understood by fellow researchers – then you do not go to the mainstream media using this same term - without qualifying it with copious explanations. (And perhaps she didn’t – I know what the media is capable of. The couple of times I have been written up in a local newspaper, I could never have recognized myself from what was reported.)

[Deleted]

Jun 1, 2014 12:44:50 GMT -5 matisse said:

From Rational's recent post:

Clancy: Forcefully! As I hope to have made clear in the book, sexual abuse is never OK. No matter what the circumstances are, or how it impacts the victims, sexual abuse is an atrocious, despicable crime. Just because it rarely physically or psychologically damages the child does not mean it is OK. Harmfulness is not the same thing as wrongfulness. And why is it wrong? Because children are incapable of consent.
Children do not understand the meaning or significance of sexual behavior. Adults know this, and thus they are taking advantage of innocent children — using their knowledge to manipulate children into providing sexual pleasure. Sick.

This does not sound like ANY kind of endorsement of the agenda of NAMBLA, regardless of NAMBLA's stance on Clancy's work.

Nobody has said that Clancy endorses NAMBLA or the Raelians. As far as I know, Clancy makes no statements about either organization.

It is clear to me from these words that Clancy does not in any way endorse the sexual abuse of children. Again, to me the objection to Clancy's research findings seems a bit like objecting to research that uncovers a pattern of differences between the structures of male and female brains just because misogynists might use the results to justify discriminating against women.

She does not endorse the sexual abuse of children......but just remember, she makes this statement "it rarely physically or psychologically damages the child" and when you drill down to discover why there is outrage at her work and endorsement by the Raelians and NAMBY, you will find part of the answer in that statement.

The book has some interesting, and possibly valid points. She devotes a large part of the book to her thesis that the methodology used in treating more traditional PTSD sufferers does not apply to CSA survivors. That may well be valid but it's difficult to comment on unless a person understands the treatment process for PTSD, which I know nothing of.

She offers some explanations for the backlash to her work.....she seems to see it as mostly political in nature. She thinks that a whole industry surrounding CSA has popped up since the early 1980's, largely on the basis that people think that every CSA offence is an awful, horrific trauma at the time of the offence. This, according to her, provides a lot of emotional impetus for funding which she thinks would fall away if people found out "the truth" that the kicking and screaming sort of trauma did not occur during the commission of CSA. That seems like a strange viewpoint since I think most professionals and interested laymen have long understood the deceptive nature of CSA being presented to the victim as love and affection rather than the fear-based, threatening type more consistent with the typical depiction of rape. In fact, that seems to be how her book all got started in that she was naively under the impression that CSA at the time of the commission was a fearful, scary, horrible event for the child and she seems to think that she alone discovered that it was not. This practically shocked her, and figured the whole industry was either ignorant or handling this wrong for political purposes and entrenched interests.....at the expense of being unable to help victims.

There is no doubt that statements she makes like indicating that the state of CSA is no better today than it was in the early 1980's is bound to ruffle the feathers of people who are deeply involved in the protection and treatment of children regarding CSA. Nobody likes to be told that their life's work has been futile. The former view is certainly something I profoundly disagree with as I think we, as a society, have made good progress toward the prevention of CSA, although I can't speak to the effectiveness of the current methods of treatment of survivors. I'm sure success or failure of treatment is difficult to measure, unlike the treatment of physical ailments.

She states she has attracted the ire of fundamentalists like Dr.Laura and Limbaugh but doesn't offer a good explanation for it. I think she feels they are ignorant of what she is saying. I doubt she has asked Dr.Laura or Limbaugh for a detailed commentary of their views on her work. She certainly positions herself as a innocent victim, and answers most of her critics as though they are too dumb or too lazy to understand her work. Personally, I think she has either gotten over her head on the subject, or she is secretly happy about the controversy as it keeps her name in the public and sell more books.....who knows what motivates people.

[rational]

Jun 1, 2014 12:33:28 GMT -5 @clearday said:

That was a paraphrase of the quote but you can use that excuse for being unable or unwilling to respond if you like.

The fact that you placed in in quotation marks indicated it was a direct quote and not a paraphrase.

I posted the actual quote several times "it rarely physically or psychologically damages the child". Would you say that she is conveying "rare psychological damages" or not?

You have posted only part of the phrase. I would say she was responding the claim that many have made saying she was supporting child abusers. She made the statement saying that no matter how little people are damaged child abuse is not justified.

No, but you could have actually read the quote I posted several times and gone back to the interview that you posted.

I would have but then you posted a quoted paraphrased version that left off about ¹/₂ of the original text.

Have you actually read the book? At first I thought it might be a misquote in the interview and was hoping you would clear it up since you insinuate you have read the book and denied that she did not say this in the book. Your defence was to belittle anyone who hadn't read the book rather than explain it with facts. Now that I have read most of the book since answers were not forthcoming, it is clear that the interview accurately portrays her views in the book. She is not contradicting herself.

I have read the book, searched the PDF, and could not find any place within the book where this was supported.

It should be no surprise that the Raelians and NAMBLA endorse her work, and no surprise at the backlash against her conclusions from academic sources. If you have read the book, you may need to read it again, and also get to understand the agenda of the Raelians and NAMBLA, and how Clancy's work fits into their agendum.

You can bring in any diversions you feel you need but what outside groups have for an agenda is not the topic of discussion.

[matisse]

Jun 1, 2014 14:53:27 GMT -5 @clearday said:

Jun 1, 2014 12:44:50 GMT -5 matisse said:

From Rational's recent post:

Clancy: Forcefully! As I hope to have made clear in the book, sexual abuse is never OK. No matter what the circumstances are, or how it impacts the victims, sexual abuse is an atrocious, despicable crime. Just because it rarely physically or psychologically damages the child does not mean it is OK. Harmfulness is not the same thing as wrongfulness. And why is it wrong? Because children are incapable of consent.
Children do not understand the meaning or significance of sexual behavior. Adults know this, and thus they are taking advantage of innocent children — using their knowledge to manipulate children into providing sexual pleasure. Sick.

This does not sound like ANY kind of endorsement of the agenda of NAMBLA, regardless of NAMBLA's stance on Clancy's work.

Nobody has said that Clancy endorses NAMBLA or the Raelians. As far as I know, Clancy makes no statements about either organization.

It is clear to me from these words that Clancy does not in any way endorse the sexual abuse of children. Again, to me the objection to Clancy's research findings seems a bit like objecting to research that uncovers a pattern of differences between the structures of male and female brains just because misogynists might use the results to justify discriminating against women.

She does not endorse the sexual abuse of children......but just remember, she makes this statement "it rarely physically or psychologically damages the child" and when you drill down to discover why there is outrage at her work and endorsement by the Raelians and NAMBY, you will find part of the answer in that statement.

The book has some interesting, and possibly valid points. She devotes a large part of the book to her thesis that the methodology used in treating more traditional PTSD sufferers does not apply to CSA survivors. That may well be valid but it's difficult to comment on unless a person understands the treatment process for PTSD, which I know nothing of.

She offers some explanations for the backlash to her work.....she seems to see it as mostly political in nature. She thinks that a whole industry surrounding CSA has popped up since the early 1980's, largely on the basis that people think that every CSA offence is an awful, horrific trauma at the time of the offence. This, according to her, provides a lot of emotional impetus for funding which she thinks would fall away if people found out "the truth" that the kicking and screaming sort of trauma did not occur during the commission of CSA. That seems like a strange viewpoint since I think most professionals and interested laymen have long understood the deceptive nature of CSA being presented to the victim as love and affection rather than the fear-based, threatening type more consistent with the typical depiction of rape. In fact, that seems to be how her book all got started in that she was naively under the impression that CSA at the time of the commission was a fearful, scary, horrible event for the child and she seems to think that she alone discovered that it was not. This practically shocked her, and figured the whole industry was either ignorant or handling this wrong for political purposes and entrenched interests.....at the expense of being unable to help victims.

There is no doubt that statements she makes like indicating that the state of CSA is no better today than it was in the early 1980's is bound to ruffle the feathers of people who are deeply involved in the protection and treatment of children regarding CSA. Nobody likes to be told that their life's work has been futile. The former view is certainly something I profoundly disagree with as I think we, as a society, have made good progress toward the prevention of CSA, although I can't speak to the effectiveness of the current methods of treatment of survivors. I'm sure success or failure of treatment is difficult to measure, unlike the treatment of physical ailments.

She states she has attracted the ire of fundamentalists like Dr.Laura and Limbaugh but doesn't offer a good explanation for it. I think she feels they are ignorant of what she is saying. I doubt she has asked Dr.Laura or Limbaugh for a detailed commentary of their views on her work. She certainly positions herself as a innocent victim, and answers most of her critics as though they are too dumb or too lazy to understand her work. Personally, I think she has either gotten over her head on the subject, or she is secretly happy about the controversy as it keeps her name in the public and sell more books.....who knows what motivates people.

Wow.  "Simply" fascinating.

[rational]

Jun 1, 2014 14:53:27 GMT -5 @clearday said:

She states she has attracted the ire of fundamentalists like Dr.Laura and Limbaugh but doesn't offer a good explanation for it. I think she feels they are ignorant of what she is saying.

Is this from her book or are you referring to some other source?

[Deleted]

Jun 1, 2014 14:45:51 GMT -5 SharonArnold said:

So, Rat, did you post the link to the Raelian article for maximum shock effect? de.raelpress.org/news.php?item.177.1

There are plenty of other reviews of Clancy’s book to choose from.

I admit, I am a skimmer here and very rarely click on external links. I always figure that if there is something worth considering, and people cannot clearly and succinctly outline it in their post, then it is not worthwhile to click on the link. You, yourself, if my memory/perception is correct, have expressed a similar viewpoint in terms of youtube videos.

Now, I am not a psychologist – not even close. (However, I might say that the single psychology course I took in university, that it was the first text book that I ever read simply for my own enjoyment/edification. I also got a reasonably impressive 98% as a final mark in the course. I have always said that if I would ever go back to school for –yet, another- degree that I would choose psychology.)

My level of education on psychology is the same as yours......I also found it enjoyable and a nice grade point booster. In fact, it probably kept me off probation after first year university as I was dredging the lower limits in grade point average!

I think most people are familiar with Stockholm syndrome. If they are not, here is the basics from Wiki:

“Stockholm syndrome, or capture-bonding, is a psychological phenomenon in which hostages express empathy and sympathy and have positive feelings toward their captors, sometimes to the point of defending and identifying with them. These feelings are generally considered irrational in light of the danger or risk endured by the victims, who essentially mistake a lack of abuse from their captors for an act of kindness.[1][2] The FBI's Hostage Barricade Database System shows that roughly 8% of victims show evidence of Stockholm syndrome.[3]

Stockholm syndrome can be seen as a form of traumatic bonding, which does not necessarily require a hostage scenario, but which describes "strong emotional ties that develop between two persons where one person intermittently harasses, beats, threatens, abuses, or intimidates the other."[4] One commonly used hypothesis to explain the effect of Stockholm syndrome is based on Freudian theory. It suggests that the bonding is the individual's response to trauma in becoming a victim. Identifying with the aggressor is one way that the ego defends itself. When a victim believes the same values as the aggressor, they cease to be a threat.”

My gut feeling that it is not commonly like Stockholm Syndrome for small children although there may be some similarities for older children. I think a lot of small children are so deceived by their perp that they aren't sure what's going on or that they are being violated. Older children who are more aware of the violation and face threats may well fall into the Stockholm Syndrome as they go along with their abuser.

(I tell my husband that the extreme slavishness that our dog (border collie) exhibits in trying to please is simply a form of Stockholm syndrome.)

For other skimmers, non-link clickers here, this is Clancy’s definition of trauma: “It is either objectively life threatening when it occurs (like getting shot at) or subjectively results in the same kind of intense fear, horror, or helplessness that objectively life-threatening events arouse.”

She goes on to say “According to the dominant theoretical framework, sexual abuse, like other traumatic experiences, damages victims because it is a frightening, horrifying, overwhelming, or painful event when it happens."

Her view on how the industry sees it is quite puzzling. As I mentioned in another post, a dumb layman like me knows that that sort of trauma is not how most CSA offences are played out. It is almost always presented to the child as good for them and they get co-opted into the offence.....which is one reason why 80% of the victims include themselves on the blame. Surely the professionals understand how these offences go. She accuses them of not listening to the victims tell how the abuse is played out. I find that extremely difficult to believe. Surely the treatment process by psychologists includes a detailed discussion of exactly what happened during the offence and how the victim felt about it....if the survivor is willing to talk about it of course. I can't imagine a single professional psychologist who would refuse to listen to the victim's story in the greatest possible detail.....that would be irresponsible at least.

I have to trust her that this is how professionals in the field view it. But to me, coming at it from a more common sense sort of position – I know (and have always known) that it is not always traumatizing to an individual when it happens. THAT is a no brainer to anyone with a modicum of common sense.

Exactly. She admits she was naive about how the offences played out until she did her research with her victim interviews. Her "discovery" has to be far from new information.

As she freely admits: “Not only is sexual abuse common, but it is damaging to those who experience it. Adults who were sexually abused as children (compared to people who were not) report a startling range of problems, including, but not limited to, mood disorders (like depression), anxiety disorders (like posttraumatic stress disorder), personality disorders, relationship and sexual problems, eating disorders, self-mutilation, alcohol and drug abuse, and even psychosis. Although no specific pattern of signs or symptoms exists—not every victim is affected in the same way to the same degree—analysis of data from both clinical and nonclinical samples reveals strong and consistent associations between the experience of early sexual contact with an adult and a host of adverse adult outcomes. The most conservative synopsis of the situation would be that sexual abuse is a significant risk factor for a wide range of adult psychological problems and disorders.”

If you drill down on what she is saying, she attributes the symptoms above not to the offence itself, but to the trauma from later information. That's where her work gets really shaky because she is giving the impression that the adult/child sex is not the cause of the symptoms per se. It is later when society tells people that they were betrayed and abused by someone that the shock and horror sets in. That's what NAMBLA and the Raelians really like about her work because now because from those two groups' perspective, all we have to do is to get society to quit telling people they were abused and all will be well. NAMBLA thinks society is abusing children by telling them as children or adults that they were abused when they experienced true love from adult/child sex.

For an ordinary person whose tribe (aka the 2X2’s) has a strong cultural undercurrent endorsing ” 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.” - it doesn’t matter much at what point the trauma happens or the reason why. (We don’t care.) It only matters that it does happen and that IT MUST BE STOPPED. (Caps are for emphasis, and Yes, I am shouting.) (Though there are visions of Miss America and world peace here, according to Rat.)

Yes, she would get along fine with the workers (and many others) who used to claim that the child should just forget about it, they suffered no bruising or lacerations, so all will be fine.

I think it is pretty clear that Clancy has got on the wrong side of many mainstream researchers. Indeed, from my brief perusal of her work, she kind of strikes me as the National Enquirer of social science. As a researcher, it is your responsibility to frame things in terms that others are readily able to understand. If you are using an narrow definition of, say, something like “trauma” which is readily only understood by fellow researchers – then you do not go to the mainstream media using this same term - without qualifying it with copious explanations. (And perhaps she didn’t – I know what the media is capable of. The couple of times I have been written up in a local newspaper, I could never have recognized myself from what was reported.)

My gut feeling is that she is over her head on this. By slamming her critics as ignorant and/or politically motivated and positioning herself as a victim, that is a defence typical of someone very unsure of themselves. The truth is, many intelligent and knowledgeable people have read her work and have rejected it.....except for the Raelians and NAMBLA. That alone should be indicative of the quality of her conclusions.

[Deleted]

Jun 1, 2014 15:18:26 GMT -5 rational said:

Jun 1, 2014 14:53:27 GMT -5 @clearday said:

She states she has attracted the ire of fundamentalists like Dr.Laura and Limbaugh but doesn't offer a good explanation for it. I think she feels they are ignorant of what she is saying.

Is this from her book or are you referring to some other source?

The book states that Laura and Limbaugh "attacked" Professor Rind for the same idea she espouses that CSA does not directly or immediately lead to harm, calling it "garbage science" and wanting to "sexualize our children and normalize pedophilia". (Of course they didn't attack Rind, they attacked the idea.) You can be sure that their ire is no less intense for Clancy's agreement with the idea. She should really ask for a detailed explanation of her "garbage science" rather than shoot back with the allegation that her critics have an "allergy to the truth".

[Deleted]

Clancy leaves no stone unturned as she lashes out to the world. Not only are the treatments for survivors harming them more than helping them:

".......most existing programs for sexual abuse prevention do not work."

[Deleted]

And folks, forget about teaching your children about how to be safe from Uncle Creepy:


" 'Neither evaluation research nor knowledge about cognitive and social development gives any reason to believe that sexual abuse education programs targeting children are effective
in preventing abuse.' Given that the situations they will confront will likely be too complicated for them to learn to grasp, it is unfair to expect them to."

Isn't the education of children as the first line of defence your preferred prevention method rational?

[Deleted]

Is there anything in Clancy's book that you disagree with rational? If so, what would that be?

[matisse]

Jun 1, 2014 15:55:55 GMT -5 @clearday said:

And folks, forget about teaching your children about how to be safe from Uncle Creepy:


" 'Neither evaluation research nor knowledge about cognitive and social development gives any reason to believe that sexual abuse education programs targeting children are effective
in preventing abuse.' Given that the situations they will confront will likely be too complicated for them to learn to grasp, it is unfair to expect them to."

Isn't the education of children as the first line of defence your preferred prevention method rational?

I am watching with curiosity as you continue to take Clancy's words out of context and misrepresent her.  It's almost like you are carrying out a personal vendetta against Clancy as well as against Rational.

I am hoping that I have posted enough of Clancy's words, in context, that others reading this thread will recognize what you are doing.

[Deleted]

Jun 1, 2014 16:15:11 GMT -5 matisse said:

Jun 1, 2014 15:55:55 GMT -5 @clearday said:

And folks, forget about teaching your children about how to be safe from Uncle Creepy:


" 'Neither evaluation research nor knowledge about cognitive and social development gives any reason to believe that sexual abuse education programs targeting children are effective
in preventing abuse.' Given that the situations they will confront will likely be too complicated for them to learn to grasp, it is unfair to expect them to."

Isn't the education of children as the first line of defence your preferred prevention method rational?

I am watching with curiosity as you continue to take Clancy's words out of context and misrepresent her.  It's almost like you are carrying out a personal vendetta against Clancy as well as against Rational.

I am hoping that I have posted enough of Clancy's words, in context, that others reading this thread will recognize what you are doing.

Now you are misrepresenting me. There is certainly nothing personal about any of this and rational is completely irrelevant to me on this subject.....it's the subject matter that I am focusing on, nothing more. Note that I have agreed with Clancy on some points and am prepared to state agreement on other points. That is a sign of objectivity. I have seen none of that from you or rational. I have seen neither of you (that I recall right now) disagree with anything she has stated. Should I understand that to be full agreement? Who is being objective here? All both of you seem to want to do is disagree with me it seems and make false claims of misrepresentation, but I could be wrong there. I prefer to discuss the subject and understand the ideas being presented, not make personal attacks.

[Deleted]

Clancy states:

"no clear progress has been made in the field in terms of definition, treatments, identification, or prevention of sexual abuse. And, as a consequence, the health and welfare of abused
children and their families are compromised"


Fact:

In Canada since 1993 to 2007, the rate of police-reported sexual offences (all) has declined by almost 50%.