|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Hell: Internet Child Porn-Hundreds Arrested
|
Tubbs
Miss Congeniality
# 440
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mrs Tubbs:
Thank you GH. But as for you EL ... ![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
Tubbs
I forgot to add. GH, I'm sorry I lost my temper with you. But EL, the comments still stand. Trip trap
Tubbs
--------------------
"It's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than open it up and remove all doubt" - Dennis Thatcher. My blog. Decide for yourself which I am
Posts: 12701 | From: Someplace strange | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
3M Matt
Shipmate
# 1675
|
Posted
quote:
However, it is clinically insane to maintain that the repercussions of that divorce are on par with the repercussions of an adult who has violated a child's fundamental right to grow up safe, happy, innocent and loved. What kind of world is it that equates such a heinous act with recognition that you have not succeeded in an equal partnership?
I think the arguement was somthing like..stepfathers are more likely to be abusers of children than natural fathers, divorce leads to step-parentage, therefore divorce is a driving force behind increasing child abuse.
I suppose it's also part of a more general argument that breakdown of nuclear family is having a profound impact on our whole society and that a spin-off of that is increase in child abuse.
If what is being said amounts to "The smaller things cause the bigger things" then it's no doubt true. But, as you say, you can't on the basis of that say that the smaller things are worse in themselves.
matt
--------------------
3M Matt.
Posts: 1227 | From: London | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tubbs
Miss Congeniality
# 440
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt the Mad Medic:
quote:
However, it is clinically insane to maintain that the repercussions of that divorce are on par with the repercussions of an adult who has violated a child's fundamental right to grow up safe, happy, innocent and loved. What kind of world is it that equates such a heinous act with recognition that you have not succeeded in an equal partnership?
I think the arguement was somthing like..stepfathers are more likely to be abusers of children than natural fathers, divorce leads to step-parentage, therefore divorce is a driving force behind increasing child abuse.
I suppose it's also part of a more general argument that breakdown of nuclear family is having a profound impact on our whole society and that a spin-off of that is increase in child abuse.
If what is being said amounts to "The smaller things cause the bigger things" then it's no doubt true. But, as you say, you can't on the basis of that say that the smaller things are worse in themselves.
matt
Interesting line of arguement but ... if you also look at the greater awareness of child sex abuse and the like now compared to what it was, say in the 70's - that would also help explain the rise in reported cases. (According to a recent documentary police first thought two children -Susan Blatchford, 11, and Gary Hanlon, 12 - in the "Babes in the Wood" murder case had died of cold rather than as a result of being attacked by Ronald Jebson)
Tubbs
--------------------
"It's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than open it up and remove all doubt" - Dennis Thatcher. My blog. Decide for yourself which I am
Posts: 12701 | From: Someplace strange | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arrietty
Ship's borrower
# 45
|
Posted
Many of the men I dealt with in prison were in their 60s and 70s, having been abusers for many years but only charged when adult victims plucked up the courage to report what had happened.
We can't know if it is any more common now, but the fact it is easier to recognise and report may result in a greater conviction rate without any increase in offences.
--------------------
i-church
Online Mission and Ministry
Posts: 6634 | From: Coventry, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arrietty
Ship's borrower
# 45
|
Posted
Oh, and the 'fact' quoted above that most abusers are the victims of previous abuse is not borne out by serious research. So if anyone reading this is worried that in addition to everything else they have gone through, they have to worry about becoming abusers - you don't.
Sexual abuse is to do with inadequacy, low self esteem, lack of empathy and a desire for power. Perpetrators start with small and apparently victimless acts - like looking at child porn - and as they escalate their activity they justify it to themselves in the same way - the people they have abused are not really victims becasue they enjoyed it/asked for it/wanted it then changed their minds etc.
Take notice of what BB has bravely shared. The effect is absolutely devastating on victims, families, communities.
The only link with step parenting is that child abuse is rarely opportunistic but usually planned over a very long time. This involves winning the trust of people who look after young children so you are allowed time with them and the children are believed to be making it up if they say you have hurt them, because you are such a trusted member of the community.
Churches in the UK used to offer a very easy way of getting to such a position of trust. Another way is to win the trust of a single mother and become a friend of the family or a boyfriend.
--------------------
i-church
Online Mission and Ministry
Posts: 6634 | From: Coventry, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
It is very useful to have people on the Ship who know about this subject professionally. Because the rest of us only have the 'facts' provided in the media to go on, and it is hard to know which are true and which are wildly exaggerated (I had taken the 'abusers were often once abused' notion as fact, for example). So please continue to share your expertise with us and put right the inaccuracies, it is greatly appreciated.
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Obnoxious Snob
Arch-Deacon
# 982
|
Posted
One of the aspects of this current crisis regarding the extent to which child abuse images are downloaded(lets not kid ourselves-that is what pornographic pictures of children are-abuse from first to last-and if you download this shit, you are an abuser of children), is the reality that it reveals, yet again. Children are most in danger, not from the evil and predatory stranger but from families and friends in whom they have put their unconditional trust. And the flagrant breaking of this unconditional trust by adults has consequences for that child's development and hope of a flourishing life which are incalculable.
It makes me ask questions about Christian notions of the family which continue to stress that it is the family which is the foundation of a safe and secure environment in which our children can lovingly grow. Is this true when so many families, seemingly respectable and moral, contain dark secrets as to how their children are not only nurtured but kept safe. For instance, there is some research, and don't ask me where I read it, that the more overtly moral and religiously conservative and authoritarian the complexion of the family is(particularly residing in the father), the more likely it is that issues of child abuse will not only be unacknowledged but actively denied. A Recent Panorama programme concerning the wide spread denial of child abuse amongst Jehovah Witnesses is a case in point.
--------------------
'The best thing we can do is to make wherever we're lost in Look as much like home as we can'
Christopher Fry
Posts: 889 | From: Kernow | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Merseymike
Shipmate
# 3022
|
Posted
Exactly, Arch. ![[Not worthy!]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
--------------------
Christianity is not a problem to be solved, but a mystery to be experienced
Posts: 3360 | From: Walked the plank | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Merseymike
Shipmate
# 3022
|
Posted
And there simply isn't a mass of concern about 'child abuse' - what there is public concern about is organised paedophilia, which makes up a tiny amount of the amount of child abuse which goes on - the vast bulk of which is within families and by those known to the children, and the victims are more likely to be young girls.
It seems to me that there is anything but concern and concentration on that sort of child abuse.
--------------------
Christianity is not a problem to be solved, but a mystery to be experienced
Posts: 3360 | From: Walked the plank | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arrietty
Ship's borrower
# 45
|
Posted
To say it mostly happens in the family is a complete red herring. It is not the same as saying most children are more at risk from family members than from those outside. If your family does not contain paedophiles this does not mean your child is not at risk, sadly, s/he could be at risk from a member of a friend's family or from another trusted adult.
If we're talking about sexual abuse (which I presume we are) you can't divorce the two. There aren't two sorts of paedophiles - those who abuse in the family and those who abuse strangers - between whom those enforcing the law need to choose. Those abusing in families look for new victims once their relatives grow up, these will be outside the family but maybe not too far outside. Paedophilia is a behaviour pattern. 'Organised paedophiles' often organise things involving their own children or grandchildren as they are the most easily available to them.
--------------------
i-church
Online Mission and Ministry
Posts: 6634 | From: Coventry, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
daisymay
St Elmo's Fire
# 1480
|
Posted
And they use their own children to supply their paediphile friends.
And if their is paedophilia around in a family, there is usually a plethora of other kinds of abuse, too.
--------------------
London
Flickr fotos
Posts: 11224 | From: London - originally Dundee, Blairgowrie etc... | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
babybear
Bear faced and cheeky with it
# 34
|
Posted
There are patterns of abuse that 'flow' down the family tree. In this pattern a person will abuse their eldest child, and then disgard in favour of a younger child. This will continue, with nieces and/or nephews, then on to grandchildren and great-neices and/or nephews. It is in situations like this that the family will often clam up and make outcasts of anyone who dare make any allegations.
Of course, it is not simply just young girls that are abused by males in the families, or step-families. Men abuse boys as well, and women also abuse children.
If you are a parent with young children:
- Be loving and trustworthy. Let your child know that you trust him/her, and that they can share any secrets with you.
- Teach them that their body belongs to them, and that they can accept hugs and kisses, or reject them.
- Teach your young children that if people touch them and they feel unhappy or uncomfortable about it then they should tell you.
- Teach them that people should not be touching them in their private areas. The easiest way to explain that is to talk about the part of the body covered by swim-wear.
- Teach them about 'good secrets' and 'bad secrets'. Good secrets are things like suprise birthday parties. Bad secrets are the 'Don't tell or you will get in trouble.', 'This is our little secret.'
Don't go overboard and start frightening your children. Be gentle with them, and be consistent.
bb
Posts: 13287 | From: Cottage of the 3 Bears (and The Gremlin) | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Garden Hermit
Shipmate
# 109
|
Posted
For information there is a book I've read written by Adrian Plass about a curate who lived on the Isle of Wight. The curate was, I believe, sexually abused by his single mother when he was very young, and after reading the first disturbing chapter it took me a month before I could pick it up again. I'm sorry I can't remember the title but this guy through much pain eventaully had a successful healing ministry.
We do as a Society seem to be living with Sex 'in our faces' all day on billboards, top shelves, newspapers and TV. The only news about The Royal Family that makes the newspapers is sexual.
I noticed on the way home yesterday a Magazine in WH Smith with a woman on the front (probably 20) made up to look like a 13 year old schoolgirl in uniform sucking a lolly.
Pax et Bonum
Posts: 1413 | From: Reading UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Assistant Village Idiot
Shipmate
# 3266
|
Posted
Lets be clear about several statistical points.
The number of biological fathers sexually abusing their daughters (or sons) is low. Most family abuse is from stepfathers, stepbrothers, uncles, cousins. Family friends and adults in authority are also high on the list. Abuse by the biological dad, when it occurs, is more likely to be damaging. Which is unsurprising, really.
There is a constant hope by researchers that they will uncover that religiously conservative, authoritarian fathers are the most common abusers, because that fits the prejudice of those doing the research. I don't believe anything which stands up to scrutiny has come out, but I admit I have not interested myself in the research in the past ten years. (I became disillusioned as more and more of the research experts in the field turned out to be abusers. I kept having to throw away expensive texts as unreliable. That is something I have on impression, not statistically.)
Interestingly, merseymike, the numbers of boys and girls abused is more equal than you might think. There are many more adult molesters of girls, but they tend to have few victims. Molesters of boys (I think the terms homosexual and heterosexual are misleading when talking about abused children. Not that there is nothing to the distinction, but that they obscure more than they reveal.) are much fewer in number but tend to have hundreds of victims. I have not heard any satisfactory explanations of this, and because it doesn't particularly give ammunition to any prejudice, we may have to wait long until research on the topic is very far-reaching.
I have heard many speculations about this, but they impress me as attempts to fit the data to the theories.
As of a decade ago in the US, about 40% of child molesters had themselves been molested. Molesters like to think of themselves as sexually impulsive, but are better described as opportunistic. Proof of progression from pornography to live abuse is tenuous, but not non-existent. There is some connection demonstrated. But the connection of substance abuse to events of molestation is quite high. Even though I personally believe pornography is mental rehearsal -- for some, rehearsal of a play which never opens -- I would give an offender a pile of porn before I allowed him one beer.
One intriguing bit in the histories of abusers of both boys and girls is the large percentage of perps who saw their mothers having sex with someone other than their fathers. There are too many confounding factors to make any linear conclusion, but it is, as I said, intriguing.
--------------------
formerly Logician
Posts: 885 | From: New Hampshire, US | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Presleyterian
Shipmate
# 1915
|
Posted
Thanks, Arietty and logician, for your perspectives on the issue. And thank you, Babybear, for your example of courage.
Posts: 2450 | From: US | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Merseymike
Shipmate
# 3022
|
Posted
Sorry, I didn't explain myself clearly enough. The 'popular view' of paedophilia is still the furtive , lonely man hanging about outside the school gates - who is part of a 'paedophile ring'. This is very much the image presented in the tabloid press, and I was trying to contrast the reality, which is that child abuse can take place in many different circumstances than that which fulfils the popular /press construction of 'the paedophile'
--------------------
Christianity is not a problem to be solved, but a mystery to be experienced
Posts: 3360 | From: Walked the plank | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Merseymike
Shipmate
# 3022
|
Posted
Logician : I think the problem with the statistics is that the number of child abusers who have actually been caught is miniscule - I do agree that it is youth which primarily appeals, rather than gender, but I would also say that the link which has often been maintained by those with such an aim, between homosexuality and paedophilia, has made it more likely that those who primarily abuse boys will be caught, since somehow that appears to be regarded as 'more serious'. Or perhaps its just part of the broader attempt to link paedophilia and homosexuality - something which makes me very angry.
This is becoming a rather purgatorial discussion, so I had better cease...
--------------------
Christianity is not a problem to be solved, but a mystery to be experienced
Posts: 3360 | From: Walked the plank | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote from logician quote:
The number of biological fathers sexually abusing their daughters (or sons) is low.
I have heard that the biological fathers who do abuse their children were not around the child during its infancy, or had nothing to do with its hands-on care.
The idea is that taking care of the most basic needs of a helpless infant arouses a feeling of protectiveness which inhibits later abuse.
Does anyone know whether this is true?
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Assistant Village Idiot
Shipmate
# 3266
|
Posted
MM, I can understand your defensiveness on the issue, and thought I had chosen my words carefully enough to not give a false impression or accusation. If I failed at that, I apologise.
I suspect you are correct that there is a significant minority of people who react more strongly against same-sex pedophilia. But even among that group, I think many would recant when confronted with the question "Is it worse?"
Moo, the theory sounds plausible, but I know of nothing to support it. I do know that in the population of bio fathers who molest daughters the alcoholism rate is very high.
--------------------
formerly Logician
Posts: 885 | From: New Hampshire, US | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Merseymike
Shipmate
# 3022
|
Posted
I'm not being defensive, logician - just accurate.
--------------------
Christianity is not a problem to be solved, but a mystery to be experienced
Posts: 3360 | From: Walked the plank | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Huia
Shipmate
# 3473
|
Posted
As someone who was molested by both my father and an older brother, I have read this thread with interest (and with tears streaming). Being a relative newcomer to the Ship I wasn't quite sure how the discussion would go, but I want to thank shipmates for the sensitivity most have shown.
It feels like a huge risk posting this, but I wanted to say the (unhellish) thank-you.
--------------------
Charity gives food from the table, Justice gives a place at the table.
Posts: 10382 | From: Te Wai Pounamu | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Obnoxious Snob
Arch-Deacon
# 982
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Huia:
As someone who was molested by both my father and an older brother, I have read this thread with interest (and with tears streaming). Being a relative newcomer to the Ship I wasn't quite sure how the discussion would go, but I want to thank shipmates for the sensitivity most have shown.
It feels like a huge risk posting this, but I wanted to say the (unhellish) thank-you.
Thank you so much, Hiua. Believe me, I know how much courage your post took. Thank you again. And a warm welcome.
![[Angel]](graemlins/angel.gif)
--------------------
'The best thing we can do is to make wherever we're lost in Look as much like home as we can'
Christopher Fry
Posts: 889 | From: Kernow | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
Thank you, Huia.
I hope that reading this thread has helped the healing prcess a little.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sarkycow
La belle Dame sans merci
# 1012
|
Posted
Welcome to Hell, and to the Ship, Huia. Take time to look around, read threads from all the boards, and post where and when you wish ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Thank-you for your honesty and bravery here.
Viki, hellhost
--------------------
“Just because your voice reaches halfway around the world doesn't mean you are wiser than when it reached only to the end of the bar.”
Posts: 10787 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Assistant Village Idiot
Shipmate
# 3266
|
Posted
Huia
Welcome. You will find things written that make you wince, but I think your experience here will be similar to your experience across the board.
I am a lousy therapist, but part of my job is steering people away from interventions which will cause more harm than good. Please correspond if you want an objective opinion on the therapy/no therapy/which therapy questions, and the wrestle with it/bury it questions.
--------------------
formerly Logician
Posts: 885 | From: New Hampshire, US | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
babybear
Bear faced and cheeky with it
# 34
|
Posted
I think that as more people say "I was also abused." it makes it harder for people to cling to their untrue 'facts' and their preconceptions of who child abusers are.
I have found that healing takes a huge amount of time. There have bee a couple of times when I read that thread that I was sobbing.
My tip is that if the consequences of abuse are affecting everything you do, then go seek qualified professional advice. If there are 'eruptions', then deal with them as they come along. Don't go digging, but when they come to the surface, do something about it. That is what I have done, and it has worked pretty well for me.
The other night I suddenly remember so many details about the surroundings. It brought lots of memoried flooding back. Then I 'saw' him, for the first time I saw him through 'adult eyes'. He was a small, almost fraile man, very lonely. I found myself alternating between being full of pity for him and being very angry that anyone could treat a child in that way.
bb
Posts: 13287 | From: Cottage of the 3 Bears (and The Gremlin) | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Obnoxious Snob
Arch-Deacon
# 982
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by logician:
Huia
I am a lousy therapist, but part of my job is steering people away from interventions which will cause more harm than good. Please correspond if you want an objective opinion on the therapy/no therapy/which therapy questions, and the wrestle with it/bury it questions.
Tell me, Logician, what actually qualifies you to offer an 'objective' opinion? I have wondered this about many of your threads. You seem to believe you possess a wisdom many of us that is somehow irrefutably and objectively verifiable. How it does it feel to feel you are so 'objectively' right so much of the time? Isn't an 'objective opinion' a tautology?
--------------------
'The best thing we can do is to make wherever we're lost in Look as much like home as we can'
Christopher Fry
Posts: 889 | From: Kernow | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Obnoxious Snob
Arch-Deacon
# 982
|
Posted
a wisdom many of us find barely attainable is what I thought I was saying in the middle of the last thread. Sorry
--------------------
'The best thing we can do is to make wherever we're lost in Look as much like home as we can'
Christopher Fry
Posts: 889 | From: Kernow | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
His profile says 'Psychiatric Social Worker' but whether you think that qualifies him to comment, Arch-, probably depends on your view of Psychiatric Social Workers!
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Assistant Village Idiot
Shipmate
# 3266
|
Posted
Well, I think "objective opinion" is somewhat self-contradictory, Arch- and I will try to eliminate it from my vocabulary. The phrasing "I have a position..." would have been better, or "disinterested opinion."
As to my knowledge of things -- one person's Renaissance Man is another's dilletante, eh? I know that my arrogant tone is off-putting, and allowing that to show through (for it is unfortunately the Real Me) is a conscious decision. I spent the years between 20-35 being so desperately polite and circuitous that I was not understood. I decided to risk the opposite problem, of being offensive but at least clearly understood.
As to the issue at hand, I have been a psychiatric social worker on a variety of acute-care units at a public psychiatric hospital for 25 years. This makes for a total of some 5,000 patients. I have as a natural consequence known dozens of sexual offenders and hundreds of victims. I have some graduate training related to the field. I read, I listen, I seek out people who really know things. I used to go to conferences as well, but that was a decade ago. Most of my patients have Serious Mental Illnesses, personality disorders, neurological problems, and/or addictions, so I can apply a general knowledge as well. I have to know more than a smattering of a score of subjects to do my job.
All the above qualifications could also be listed by any number of prize idiots, and I know some. So the credentials mentioned above are really, not much. Very often I am quoting people I know who are experts when I make definitive statements. If I say "exploratory therapies which seek to uncover and re-engage past traumas are dangerous," I have not done any research and am no theorist. I simply report what is now common knowledge among the people who most effectively treat this population.
Therefore, it would be silly to use mealy-mouthed language and say "some people believe that there are risks as well as potential benefits to so-called "uncovering" therapies, and you might want to consult with a qualified professional before trying this." It would also be cruel, because it would not be a stern enough warning. You might find a "qualified" professional who would tell you what a great idea it was to relive traumas to "deal" with them, you would have a psychiatric crisis, and possibly end up in the care of someone like me. I have similar information on other therapies.
So I don't use evasive language. I tell people flat out "Don't do this. Bad for you." I don't apologise in the least for sounding/being arrogant. I'm not blowing smoke: I know the answer to that question.
I usually avoid the threads where I have no knowledge. For example, I haven't looked at the Pronoun/"She"/Referring to God thread. I have nothing to offer. I don't particularly care about the answer.
I hope I have been clear on this thread when it is that I know things, when I think them likely, and when I really don't know.
--------------------
formerly Logician
Posts: 885 | From: New Hampshire, US | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Huia
Shipmate
# 3473
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by babybear:
I think that as more people say "I was also abused." it makes it harder for people to cling to their untrue 'facts' and their preconceptions of who child abusers are.
the surface, do something about it. That is what I have done, and it has worked pretty well for me.
----------
The other night I suddenly remember so many details about the surroundings. It brought lots of memoried flooding back. Then I 'saw' him, for the first time I saw him through 'adult eyes'. He was a small, almost fraile man, very lonely. I found myself alternating between being full of pity for him and being very angry that anyone could treat a child in that way.
bb
What you say makes so much sense to me babybear. One of the reasons I posted was because of the hidden nature of abuse. It's important for me to speak my truth, but I am careful only to do so when I feel safe and am feeling strong in myself.
I visited my family home some time ago and saw my father as a defeated, old man and I too felt both anger and pity.
--------------------
Charity gives food from the table, Justice gives a place at the table.
Posts: 10382 | From: Te Wai Pounamu | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
babybear
Bear faced and cheeky with it
# 34
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by logician:
So I don't use evasive language. I tell people flat out "Don't do this. Bad for you."
That sort of answer is used by parents with their two year old child! It that leaves people asking "Why?" What you term the "mealy-mouther answer" is actually of far more help because it gives the answer to "why?".
I don't doubt your professional knowledge and have found many things that you have said on this thread to be very helpful. However, there are many people on the Ship who are like me, and want to weigh the pros and cons. I want to take informed decisions, but if the information is simply "Don't do it, tis bad." then I can not take a decision based on the information, I have to base it on trust, and as you will know people who have been abused tend to have a problem with trust. If you give reasons I can go off and read articles etc on the subject, and then come to an informed opinion.
Tis also a shame that you one visit threads where you have knowledge. There are many interesting things to be learned from listening to shipmates.
bb
Posts: 13287 | From: Cottage of the 3 Bears (and The Gremlin) | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
daisymay
St Elmo's Fire
# 1480
|
Posted
Logician said,
"All the above qualifications could also be listed by any number of prize idiots, and I know some. So the credentials mentioned above are really, not much. Very often I am quoting people I know who are experts when I make definitive statements. If I say "exploratory therapies which seek to uncover and re-engage past traumas are dangerous," I have not done any research and am no theorist. I simply report what is now common knowledge among the people who most effectively treat this population.
Therefore, it would be silly to use mealy-mouthed language and say "some people believe that there are risks as well as potential benefits to so-called "uncovering" therapies, and you might want to consult with a qualified professional before trying this." It would also be cruel, because it would not be a stern enough warning. You might find a "qualified" professional who would tell you what a great idea it was to relive traumas to "deal" with them, you would have a psychiatric crisis, and possibly end up in the care of someone like me. I have similar information on other therapies."
Logician, it depends what you mean by "uncovering therapies". There are plenty of people who have experienced abuse so dreadful that it has been repressed or suppressed so that they could survive and get on with life.
The abuse memory pops up later very often, after that wonderful defence is outdated. So it needs to be carefully, safely and respectfully addressed. And since a child's memory is different (size, knowledge etc) from an adult's memory in some ways, this is confusing and scarey.
When a person is suffering because memories are buried and are surfacing naturally, they need good, solid, loving and professionally competent help.
I don't know where you get the "common knowledge" bit from. What do you mean?
--------------------
London
Flickr fotos
Posts: 11224 | From: London - originally Dundee, Blairgowrie etc... | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Genie
Shipmate
# 3282
|
Posted
My question would be: common knowledge for whom? (NB - I realise this is generalising from a sample of one, and can't be taken as an indictment of the whole profession. However the individual involved was the only individual who dealt with young people in the fairly sizeable town in which I lived)
I was under the 'care' of a social worker who specialised in psychiatry for the year I turned 18. In that year, my faith in mental health professionals died, as I was patronised, marginalised, hassled, ignored and messed around by constant rearranging of appointments. If that woman had had her way, I would have been forced to abandon my A levels in the exam year and been sectioned to a psyche ward. The only thing that stopped her was that I had not yet turned 18, and my parents were able to fight her on my behalf.
I realise that I have only a sample of one in my experience. But the fact that there are any people at all in that position of authority with so little empathy and so little intelligence frightens me.
Who is your 'common knowledge' common to? To respected and intelligent experts in their field, or moronic automatons who specialise in attempting to shred people's lives "for their own good"?
--------------------
Alleluia, Christ is risen!
Posts: 762 | From: Cambridge | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Garden Hermit
Shipmate
# 109
|
Posted
I know a man who used to run a Care Home who has just been sentenced to prison for child abuse that happened 25 years ago.
Two of his former charges gave evidence against him. Both have long criminal records. One has already given evidence against another man, who was found guilty. The abused person then received a large payout from the organsiation that ran the home.
The trial was down to the word of one man against the 2 others. He believes that the jury just didn't listen and that they were so horrifed by what the allegations were that they didn't listen to the evidence.
He pleads his innocence, in his view saying that these men were never abused at all, but have discovered a 'gravy train'.
I can't prove whether he's guilty or not, but I wonder how many innocent men are being sent to prison for crimes that don't exist.
Posts: 1413 | From: Reading UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
Logician, I think it would be very helpful if you indicated the source of your specific information.
In the case of 'uncovering' therapy, you could say something like, "Every/many/most psychotherapist at the hospital where I work believes this therapy can be harmful. We have seen patients who would never have had to be admitted to the hospital if they had not been subjected to uncovering therapy."
When I evaluate a post, I want to know the source of the information. Flat statements don't cut it for me.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sarkycow
La belle Dame sans merci
# 1012
|
Posted
Logician and others,
Just a hostly reminder not to offer any counselling/therapeutic advice on the public boards.
Viki, hellhost
--------------------
“Just because your voice reaches halfway around the world doesn't mean you are wiser than when it reached only to the end of the bar.”
Posts: 10787 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Assistant Village Idiot
Shipmate
# 3266
|
Posted
A reasonable general challenge, Arch-. I think many others make grander claims, but I am unsubtle about it. See below.
A reasonable request, Moo. I am afraid I will disappoint, but here goes.
When I am feeling optimistic, I estimate that when one enters a discussion, there will be four groups. 30% will more or less agree with you, and the better sort will get you to refine your thought, will build on your statements, and will teach you something. Another 30% are determined to disagree, and would not accept a thing you say if you had a signed note from God. Another 10% are willing to be persuaded by good information. The last 30% is the most difficult. They believe they are in the 10% who are open to reason, but delude themselves. This group is usually the most intelligent (in the usual sense), witty, and socially enjoyable, but use this intelligence to play chess against themselves in any discussion. I really piss this group off.
That’s when I’m optimistic. More usually, I don’t believe that the 10% group exists. I don’t have any bibliography to support this view. It’s my position from observation. And I don't know how to categorize the numerous people who bring up irrelevancies or get what you say exactly backwards.
I usually only divide the groups accurately in retrospect. When I am in the thread, I tend to initially regard everyone as being in the 10% group, and I gradually get pissed off at the intrusions of two and a half (of the three) other groups and consign the whole lot to perdition. This is unfair to that magic 10%. Assuming of course, that they exist. Which I doubt.
Asking me to justify my claims with supporting data should be the most reasonable thing. It is the most reasonable thing. However, when people actually do challenge, I find they are never satisfied. Whatever credentials you bring are not enough (“Oh, but you’re not a psychonutitionist.”), your sources are always unreliable. If you make five points they go immediately to the one they hope they can wrestle to the ground, treat it as the support point for everything else, and disregard the four others. And they never learn anything.
Some of the people in this last group are quite transparent to me, probably because I am more like them than I would wish. I spend meeting times at work writing predictive notes to my neighbors. She will get back at me for that disagreement in about five minutes, and it will be an attack on something to do with gender... When he interviews that patient this afternoon, he will focus on her sexual history, and want to tell us about it tomorrow. Then he will prescribe the abusable drugs she is looking for... Jan will change the subject... I can’t do this with most people, but with those I can, my friends laugh: “How can you do that?”
I took care to build up credibility on this thread before making such dramatic statements. Go back over the posts. What seems implausible of what I have written? Given my background, which of my observations is something I am unlikely to really know about? If people want to simply disbelieve, fine. I hope you do not have a crisis that puts what I write to the test. But if you do, you won’t care that I’m arrogant. You’ll just want the right answer. I give you the glasses to try on. You judge whether it helps you see better.
I once worked with an elderly black waiter who frequently said “If you cain’t be told, you cain’t be taught.”
Viki, you are correct, and I have transgressed on that point. I have probably already said too much.
--------------------
formerly Logician
Posts: 885 | From: New Hampshire, US | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Assistant Village Idiot
Shipmate
# 3266
|
Posted
Too perfect!
Please check out the "absolutely speechless" thread for evidence supporting the above.
--------------------
formerly Logician
Posts: 885 | From: New Hampshire, US | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
I am sure you are warning people with the best motives, Logician, but as I found out when trying to warn friends away from a psychologically and spiritually abusive situation people don't want to be told. I still felt I had to say 'be careful' even though I couldn't say 'don't go there'. And that was justified later when the friends said 'you were right' but they had to say that from experience of getting their fingers burned rather than just accepting my word for it.
To use an analogy, I spent a lot of time warning my children away from the hot grill pan when they were toddlers. But it wasn't until they had touched it and burned themselves that they knew what 'hot' meant. After that, they never forgot and never tried to touch it again!
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
daisymay
St Elmo's Fire
# 1480
|
Posted
Logician,
You still have not said what you mean by "uncovering therapies."
And by your above posts, you seem to be saying that there are differing theories about most things in life.
But are you saying that I and others posting here are part of the awkward 10% ? If so, why not directly, if not let us know.
--------------------
London
Flickr fotos
Posts: 11224 | From: London - originally Dundee, Blairgowrie etc... | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
Aren't all SoF members considered to be the awkward 10%??! Isn't that why we are here? Before I gave up on Christian Union completely, we were divided up into groups. I discovered on a list that each group had been allocated one 'awkward one' so we were not all in the same group. Yes, you've guessed it, my name was down as one of the 'awkward ones' ![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
Logician calls anyone who doesn't agree with him 'awkward', n'est-ce pas? ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Anyway, what has all this to do with the thread title? I'm beginning to lose the plot...... ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
babybear
Bear faced and cheeky with it
# 34
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
Anyway, what has all this to do with the thread title? I'm beginning to lose the plot......
I haven't lost the plot, but was wondering why this has changed from being a thread about something really important into self-justication by logician.
I have really appreciated his earlier posts on the subject. But if people want to discuss his 'arrogance' please bugger off and do it on another thread.
bb
Posts: 13287 | From: Cottage of the 3 Bears (and The Gremlin) | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Assistant Village Idiot
Shipmate
# 3266
|
Posted
A Nice Person has told me to take my own advice, shut up, and just do it.
It was pretty clear. For those even remotely interested, these are my sources, and I am sorry to have played this so long. I'll go somewhere else for awhile. (Daisymae, I mean therapies which seek to dig, regress, or uncover as an intentional practice, not those which deal with what comes up unbidden.)
I start with references of people I can personally vouch for as reasonable,
having worked with them or gone to one of their workshops. That group will
be New England based. I'll start with the web-based info.
Safer Society Varied, but generally good info.
Bright, practical people who have put their ideas into practice. They also
have a lot of good evaluative tools.
Anna Salter PhD, author of Sadistic vs. Non-sadistic Sexual Offenders;
Sexual Abuse . Also writes crime novels (Shiny Water; Fault Lines; White Lies; Prison Blues) which are a little didactic in nature, and lean toward
male-bashing. So I've heard. I've only read one, and liked it fine. The
rap against her is that she gets by on charm and emotion. I don't buy that
in the least. She is very clear, very experienced with both perps and
victims, very up on the research. Maybe people are jealous because she's
attractive. She was a feminist icon until she started carrying a handgun.
If I had to deal with her clientele, I would too.
Peter Loss, PhD. Runs the Rhode Island incarcerated Sex Offender Program.
Has designed excellent risk-assessment tools published by the National
National Clearinghouse on Family Violence in Ontario. Pioneered accountability
Programs, and weighting of 30 risk factors. Perps' lawyers hate him. I think he's a lot of fun, though he's
a little worn at this point (probably those lawyers). Also designed the
Massachusetts and Connecticut Incarcerated Sex Offender programs.
Crimes Against Children Research Center at University of New Hampshire; slanted toward the "all spanking is assault"
polarity, but very valuable. If you have caught news stories about studies
showing a decrease in sexual offenses in the 90's, these are the people who
did that research.
David Cantagallo
Just heard him speak today, hadn't seen him in oh, 4-5 years. Private
therapist who treats the DSO population at the Secure Psychiatric Unit at
the NH prison and at the Youth Development Center. Vanguard of group
therapy, accountability model, behavior chain and use of electronic
supports (videotape, polygraph, plethysmograph).
Counterpoint, sexual addiction model
Martin Kafka, MD, professor of psychiatry often in Harvard Medical School newsletter. THE pioneer of the use of SSRI’s in sexual addiction, as far back as 1989. Most studies focus on voluntary outpatients, but incarcerated offenders also show a response, though less robust. Martin delights in tweaking the reader outraged by certain sexual behaviors, pointing out the winked-at pedophilia of Bill Wyman and Jerry Lee Lewis, the sexualizing of children’s clothing and entertainers, our exhibitionistic, voyeuristic, and frotteuristic culture, blandly noting the inconsistencies. Not an inspiring speaker, not a notably compassionate clinician, but he’s always ahead of the curve.
General sites and info: International Society for the Study of Dissociation Strongly in the recovered memory camp, but tries to be very cautious in their assertions. More of a treatment than educational resource.
Jim Hopper, PhD here and here Exceptionally good statistical, summary, and links page. I don’t know Dr. Hopper. I have a secondhand report that he is brilliant.
Center For Sexual Offender Management Their editorial board is the best short list of who to read in the field
Bessel Van Der Kolk's site
David Baldwin's site
Gene G. Abel, the developer of the Abel Screening Inventory, the gold standard of measuring treatment effectiveness. Professor at Emory University Medical School.
Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences vol.528
Trauma and Its Wake , Charles Figley, ed.
Anything by R. Karl Hanson, Prentky, or Becker.
Journals are going to be hard to come by for most folks, but if you have access, these are the best. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, Journal of Social Work Human Sexuality. (Social Work Journals are usually the worst in the field, but because it is frequently social workers who run victim or offender groups, they shine here.)
Spiritual connections:
Journal of Christian Healing Very uneven in quality, but much that is good.
Wayne Muller, better known for his book on the Sabbath, also has Legacy of the Heart: The Spiritual Advantage of a Painful Childhood.
Neurological bases. This is turning out to be big news. Ottawa researchers are believe there are fetal influences for a variety of sexual behaviors, and note that left-handers, brain-trauma, and are hugely overrepresented in the DSO population. Very little on the web, though you can link through Baldwin to Yehuda&McFarlane, Porges, and Perry. Mostly, you’re going to have to seek out American Journal of Psychiatry.
The Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, vol.528 Human Sexual Aggression is dated but excellent
How you feel about these depends on how you feel about 12-step groups. I believe it would be treatment-advising to give my opinion, but they all have literature and here are the links: Sexaholics Anonymous, Sex and Love Addicts Anonymous, Sex Addicts Anonymous
I only link to the EMDR and Marsha Linehan DBT Marsha Linehan DBT sites, because people would ordinarily expect to see here. I don’t disapprove of them, but I am ambivalent. I think if I explain why, I will be giving treatment advice.
--------------------
formerly Logician
Posts: 885 | From: New Hampshire, US | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Huia
Shipmate
# 3473
|
Posted
Logician, Thanks for all your posts on this thread, particulaly the last one. Huia
--------------------
Charity gives food from the table, Justice gives a place at the table.
Posts: 10382 | From: Te Wai Pounamu | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sarkycow
La belle Dame sans merci
# 1012
|
Posted
I briefly caught a news item on this (BBC1 bout 8ish I think), and it said that 7,000 people had subscribed to the American child porn site, and had their details passed to the police of their area, when the American police broke the ring. Of these 7,000, only 200 had been arrested so far, for having illegal subscriptions to child porn sites, never mind the pictures etc on their hard drives, which are also illegal. Apparently a lot of the different police forces didn't realise exactly what the pictures involved* and/or didn't think it was an important enough crime to warrant even cautioning them, let alone arresting the fuckers. One area sent them all letters saying that the police knew they had been subscribing to this shit, but nothing more.
![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
Viki
*According to the news programme, the pictures weren't just kids in swimsuits etc; most of the shit the American police found when they raided the place was children being graphically abused/raped.
[Forgot footnote]
[ 23. November 2002, 02:03: Message edited by: sarkycow ]
--------------------
“Just because your voice reaches halfway around the world doesn't mean you are wiser than when it reached only to the end of the bar.”
Posts: 10787 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Obnoxious Snob
Arch-Deacon
# 982
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sarkycow:
I briefly caught a news item on this (BBC1 bout 8ish I think), and it said that 7,000 people had subscribed to the American child porn site, and had their details passed to the police of their area, when the American police broke the ring. Of these 7,000, only 200 had been arrested so far, for having illegal subscriptions to child porn sites, never mind the pictures etc on their hard drives, which are also illegal. Apparently a lot of the different police forces didn't realise exactly what the pictures involved* and/or didn't think it was an important enough crime to warrant even cautioning them, let alone arresting the fuckers. One area sent them all letters saying that the police knew they had been subscribing to this shit, but nothing more.
Viki
*According to the news programme, the pictures weren't just kids in swimsuits etc; most of the shit the American police found when they raided the place was children being graphically abused/raped.
[Forgot footnote]
This is what I was attempting to stress. These are not isolated incidents but huge numbers of people, largely unkown to the police, who are downloading the most appalling images of abuse. This is child abuse on a previously unknown scale, committed not by the 'curious', whatever the hell that means, but by abusers, for downloading and watching this indescribable stuff is child abuse, pure and simple. The stereotype of the lurking, evil stranger preying on our children is not the one we should be most fearful of, but that nice chap next door, you know, the one who is a bit of a computer buff!
--------------------
'The best thing we can do is to make wherever we're lost in Look as much like home as we can'
Christopher Fry
Posts: 889 | From: Kernow | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
daisymay
St Elmo's Fire
# 1480
|
Posted
Logician,
Nice set of sites. Sorry I can't add any UK ones as when I sabotaged my iMac, I lost all my 'favourites'.
Arch,
It is horrifying and hellish. But maybe this publicity (though it's dying down; I wonder why?) will help the 'general public' to get away from their stereotyping of child abusers and wife batterers as 'ignorant, brutish, working-clas' types.
So many abusers are really clever at conning both victims and onlookers.
--------------------
London
Flickr fotos
Posts: 11224 | From: London - originally Dundee, Blairgowrie etc... | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Basket Case
Shipmate
# 1812
|
Posted
from daisymay:
quote:
So many abusers are really clever at conning both victims and onlookers.
This is so true, and don’t forget the accessories to the crime: every single adult who is aware of an abuser, & refuses to act because it is SO much easier to look the other way.
Posts: 1157 | From: Pomo (basket) country | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
