Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
It is not true, for example, that children would only ever come into contact with each other's genital areas in an inherently abusive context.

Kids do in fact do things like "play doctor" and explore each other's bodies. This appears to be considered normal . . .

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

I'm not sure you even understand what "mitigation" means.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

Sometimes it feels as if you're treating me as having said that a 14-year-old is automatically innocent and should face no consequence at all. At no stage have I actually said that!

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Crœsos gives a solid explanation why a teen sexually touching a small child is not normal behaviour.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
[American Christians are] NOT freaking powerful or influential. Despite what the media suggests about us dastardly conspiratorial Christians of whatever dull mainstream stripe. We just aren't. [...]

Remember that TV is all about the sell. Interesting/freaky/oddball/horrifying SELLS. Ordinary dull boring Christian does NOT sell. Which means no advertisers, no sponsors, no nothing.

I have no doubt we could get a "reality" show about so-called Christian swingers into production in a heartbeat. It would appeal to the same people who like "UFO stole my two-headed baby" stories.

Something balanced? Ha.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
lilBuddha, in my experience, teenagers (and children) who sexually abuse are often very confused and suffering from stress, shame, worry about the rest of their lives and access to college.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doublethink.:
It not that that such things should not be reported, . . .

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
We've got numerous

---

quote:

---

examples

---

quote:

---

on

---

quote:

---

this

---

quote:

---

thread

---

quote:

---

why in this particular case the [beloved religious leader / famous entertainer / powerful politician / noted moral scold / whatever] in question shouldn't be (or "have been" for those cases discovered long after the fact) subjected to the normal procedures set up to handle such cases.

---

quote:

---

Are the various social service and law enforcement entities tasked with handling these sorts of things perfect or above criticism? Absolutely not. Are they better than trying to maintain a veil of secrecy that's more intent on hiding abuse than dealing with it? Almost always the answer is 'yes'.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Yet a large proportion of Americans claim to be Christians, and the proportion of churchgoers in the USA is apparently higher than it is anywhere else in the West - and there's probably much more Christian diversity there too. Hollywood makes biblical films in the hope that all the Christians will flock to see them. Potential presidents are expected to display their Christian credentials. All this suggests that there should be interest in programming that reflects faith in its variety.

As outsiders to the USA, we're given rather schizophrenic cultural visions of a strident right wing evangelicalism on the one hand, and hedonistic abandon on the other. It doesn't make a lot of sense that the many American Christians who exist in between these two extremes are hardly ever given a public face. British TV, for all its faults, doesn't assume that extremism represents the only face of Christianity.

---

I wish you'd come here, stay for a while, and see for yourself. Look, ordinary Christians are not the only faceless group when it comes to TV. You are also not going to see depictions of the average family, for instance--the one with bills, ordinary worries, ordinary joys. What you will get are shows about extreme situations--polygamy, teen mothers, people living with dwarfism or cancer, people from extreme subcultures like the Duck dynasty stuff. Not average Joe and Jeanne, married or not, with a kid or two, with a car that breaks down, with worries about a job and a house and relatives--but nothing out of the ordinary. It would never sell.
Similarly you're not going to get coverage that focuses on moderate Republicans, or moderate Democrats, or moderate anything. Nobody's going to be shown on TV saying, "Ay, Obama, well, I disagree with him on some things, but by and large, he's not so bad." No school is ever going to get profiled for having quite decent grades and behavior standards, really. What you'll get instead are either apocalyptic doom-n-gloom (guns brought to school! Undercover police! Yes, it's ALL like that!) or else the way out there (Let's use quills for writing! Everyone takes Latin in first grade! Our students beat the whole US on test scores, because we have a Latino female fire-breathing dragon for a principal!)

And since the TV/media in the US is almost completely market-driven, why should we expect to see anything else? We just don't HAVE any major paternalistic or maternalistic agencies out there to say "You really ought to have THIS kind of programming, instead, it's more socially beneficial (to say nothing of more true)." Where's the money to come from? PBS (public nonprofit TV) has to do major fundraisers all the time, and grant money is hard to come by, and it's a minority who watches it at all anyway. The rest of TV production depends on advertisers. Who want eyes on screens, and to hell with social benefits and equal representation.

This is why parents spend so much angst on the issue of trying to drag kids away from the boob tube, and why we focus so much on teaching them in our schools to filter out bullshit from TV/internet. I've had to do a LOT of that in my alternate lives as an English teacher/professor. It's fast becoming a primary function.

I have no idea where British TV gets its funding from. But I rather suspect you have sources and resources not available to US TV. Not to mention a number of general social attitudes that plain don't exist here.

Anyway.

Let me address the first bit of what you wrote. Lots of Christians? Well, maybe. Enough to make a market for the very occasional biblical film (though NOT, you notice, without the usual Hollywood "spiffing up" aka distortion in the interests of sensationalism). Which a lot of watchers, including Christians, won't catch, as so many are biblically illiterate.

Presidents having to show Christian credentials? Meh. What you have to do is show alleged MORAL credentials. Which is why a Mormon made it as far as he did in the last race, and why Jimmy Carter got bagged on all the time for actually believing all that stuff and letting it affect his actions. (Mustn't go that far, of course!) Basically what you must have is church membership in a mainstream denomination, the duller the better (we're not looking for much more than that as an electorate, and we'll get squeamish about active activity such as teaching or preaching, or even membership in some of the denominations with a more "active" reputation.) and an ability to make broad sweeping statements that can't offend anybody (for example, Muslims/Jews/extreme patriots/other Christian groups, which means avoiding a lot of potholes, most notably all but the most glancing of references to Jesus). So no praying in Jesus' name or mentions of Christian doctrine where anybody can hear you, which includes your private life (which won't be private, of course). But you can quote him as a great human teacher all you want, and it will add to your moral cred (don't ever come out and say that, but do act from that perspective and you'll be all right).

TL;DR version: If you're getting your understanding of America from our media, God help you.


--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!

Posted                       

quote:

---

No, it isn't. What it is is complicated.
Time affects so much, both in quality of real memories and what may be false memory. Memory is a less solid thing than we tend to think and time complicates this.
Time degrades evidence of all sorts.
Limiting prosecution time is a reasonable concept that is often poorly applied.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Posted by LB:

quote:

---

No, it isn't. What it is is complicated.
Time affects so much, both in quality of real memories and what may be false memory. Memory is a less solid thing than we tend to think and time complicates this.
Time degrades evidence of all sorts.
Limiting prosecution time is a reasonable concept that is often poorly applied.

---

For those who have suffered abuse or rape, I would suspect that the event is forever burned in their brain; much as they might love to try and forget it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by fletcher christian:

It takes enormous courage to pursue a case and parents are unlikely to want to put a rush on it and drag their already traumatised child through the court and legal system. The passing of time would seem to me to be a crucial factor in enabling abuse survivors to reach a point when they are able to face it enough to go to court.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by fletcher christian:
For those who have suffered abuse or rape, I would suspect that the event is forever burned in their brain; much as they might love to try and forget it.

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
[alleged] perpetrators are at least marginally known to us, if not by celebrity then simply by the reporting of the case at hand, while the [alleged] victims are very often unknown and faceless.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Presidents having to show Christian credentials? Meh. What you have to do is show alleged MORAL credentials. Which is why a Mormon made it as far as he did in the last race, and why Jimmy Carter got bagged on all the time for actually believing all that stuff and letting it affect his actions. (Mustn't go that far, of course!) Basically what you must have is church membership in a mainstream denomination, the duller the better (we're not looking for much more than that as an electorate, and we'll get squeamish about active activity such as teaching or preaching, or even membership in some of the denominations with a more "active" reputation.)

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
It is not true, for example, that children would only ever come into contact with each other's genital areas in an inherently abusive context.

Kids do in fact do things like "play doctor" and explore each other's bodies. This appears to be considered normal . . .

---

Once again we see the lengths people will go to in order to excuse the actions of abusers. While "playing doctor" is fairly normal, that sort of thing typically involves children of roughly the same age who are both willing participants. This does not seem to be the [alleged] case with Josh Duggar. According to the police report Josh Dugger [allegedly] assaulted all his victims while they were asleep, and the basic math of the Duggar family indicates that if we accept the police report's timeline and assertion that Josh Duggar [allegedly] molested four of his sisters, his youngest [alleged] victim would have been 4 or 5 years old at the time. A fourteen or fifteen year old boy [allegedly] groping an unconscious five year old's chest and vagina (again going by the police report) is not what most people mean by "playing doctor".

---

Posted                       

• that the children involved in child on child sexual abuse know what they are doing is wrong (if it's happened to them they don't necessarily know - that's why abusers are often abused);
• that because the prurient world hasn't been told something is happening, nothing is actually happening - there are a lot of very good reasons, said prurience being one of them, for not telling the world about the treatment of the victims and the sex offenders;
• that once a young person has done something that is seen as being sexually offensive they are unable to change, ever.

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
(if it's happened to them they don't necessarily know - that's why abusers are often abused)

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Why is there such a heavy focus on Josh Duggar?

Let me just accept here that he did something wrong at age 14. He's admitted that much himself in his own words, whatever the precise details are.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Is there any evidence that he continued to do something wrong afterwards?

Is there any evidence that he has proclivities to do something wrong NOW?

As far as I'm aware the answer is 'No' on both counts.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
That's what seems to be missing from the conversation here. I get that there's a reason why certain procedures are in place, and they are (or should be!) based on best practice, but amongst all the criticism of what his parents did do or didn't do is missing a recognition that, in terms of Josh's behaviour, the right outcome appears to have been achieved.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Reread it and you'll note I was discussing which denomination to belong to, if you are a presidential hopeful--not which photo ops to take (all of them, basically. It takes some doing to have candidates turn you down).

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

And in general we don't do a lot of swimming events where swimming suits are worn because it's just too hard for the guys to try to keep their eyes averted in those situations.

---

quote:

---

when a guy sees a girl dance, it really can be defrauding to a guy, especially if they're dressed immodestly. The definition of defrauding would be building up sensual desires that you cannot rightfully fulfill.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

I am a survivor of rape (as a young woman) and of physical and emotional abuse (in childhood). I have also spent part of my professional life assisting other rape survivors through recovery from the initial trauma and through, in some cases, the further trauma of the criminal justice proceedings when they reported.

The amount of stigma and consequent secrecy which surrounds rape, especially, has led, IMO, to a great deal of utter nonsense about its aftermath. Of course, every case is different, because the victims, circumstances, and perps are different too.

There are undoubtedly some rape survivors who remain permanently damaged by the trauma. So much depends not only on what she was put through, the nature of the perp and his triggers, the victim's own beliefs and attitudes about rape before it happened and what it means for and about her going forward, her own coping resources, and above all, what support she has from those near & dear to her, her ability to access that support and their ability to provide it, and on and on, we simply cannot generalize about the long-term effects of rape on those who have survived it.

I have known some survivors to pick up the pieces and move on with their lives six months. I have known two who killed themselves within a year of the event. I have known plenty who fall between these extremes.

IMO, it's less than helpful for all of us who deal with sexual violence and its survivors to carry in our heads the notion that "the rape is burned in their brains" or "they're forever scarred."

Let survivors be who -- and how -- they actually, really are as they work, in their own good time at their own pace, through recovery. They have their own sh*t to deal with and do not need the added burden of coping with others' headfuls of rubbish about them.

I am some three decades past an assault which lasted several hours, resulted in both stab wounds and emotional damage, and a trial which resulted initially in a hung jury.

I hardly ever think about either the rape itself or the trial. For me, it only comes up when the topic of sex assault comes up. After the rape, I married (and divorced); I returned to school to pursue a grad degree; embarked on a career which I've both pursued and changed successfully, and (aside from being now single and also childless in middle-age-getting-on-for-seniordom) am pretty much indistinguishable from other women of my age and class. No one can tell, from observing me as I traverse a dark parking lot or city block all alone to my car, that I am a quivering mass of terrified nerves teetering on the brink of panic, hypervigilant and awaiting attack, because, guess what? I'm not.

Many of us not only survive, we also recover. Some of us don't. We are not all necessarily fragile emotional teacups, sans saucers, perched on a loose shelf, needing only a breeze from an open window to topple us into helpless pieces.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Croesos, all I have to say in response is that I think "innocent until proven guilty" means something.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
If the answer is "we don't know", then it's not appropriate in my view to say "we know he was doing something 13 years ago as a child, so let's err on the side of presuming he's still doing something".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
It is actually this attitude towards sexual offences that makes genuine rehabilitation so damn difficult.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by fletcher christian:
I went on to state that trauma tends to get indelibly burned upon our brains. This is pretty much common to all human beings, whether that trauma be through abuse or the death of a loved one, or whatever. We also have the capacity to remember in particularly vivid terms, strange and curious details and we may not be sure why we have that detail written large in the memory. In rare circumstances the trauma is so great that the mind removes (or cuts off access) all memory of the event and in some cases this takes the passage of time before details of it begin to trickle back; in rare cases it never does.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by fletcher christian:
I appreciate your honesty in sharing your own story, but you assume a lot; nine paragraphs to be exact, none of which I actually stated yet you have imputed I believed and held to. I have to be honest, I found it quite offensive.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by fletcher christian:
I would suspect that the event is forever burned in their brain; much as they might love to try and forget it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by fletcher christian:
The passing of time would seem to me to be a crucial factor in enabling abuse survivors to reach a point when they are able to face it enough to go to court.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

There are quite a few misconceptions there, Fletcher

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Both suggest to me an image (one you might possibly be holding, whether consciously or not) of rape victims as (A) out-of-control, and (B) permanently crippled in some fashion.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Posted by Porridge:

quote:

---

Both suggest to me an image (one you might possibly be holding, whether consciously or not) of rape victims as (A) out-of-control, and (B) permanently crippled in some fashion.

---

I can categorically assure you that I hold to neither of those assumptions in a conscious or unconscious manner.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Survivors often search for ways in which they might have avoided / prevented the attack through something they could have done differently. “If only I had left earlier. If I hadn’t said or done X. If I lived in a different place,” etc. etc. Others may interpret this as self-blame (and sometimes it is; God knows, there are plenty of socially-condoned messages Out There which DO blame victims for their victimization), but – provided the survivor is allowed to continue processing her experience – she often, through this process, begins to re-establish the sense of control and autonomy she had before the attack.

---

quote:

---

So the implication – by claiming that survivors cannot “forget,” however hard they try, something they’d rather not focus on – is that survivors are no longer in control of their own inner workings. This is very hard for this survivor to hear. You have no idea how hard I worked or for how long to regain my own sense of control.

---

quote:

---

The second issue is about memory. I am old enough, and far enough from this and other significant life events, to know just how fluid human memories are. We aren’t bio-video-recorders. Even as memories are being laid down as events unfold, we are selecting some details and suppressing others. Not only that, but what we recall 10 minutes after the fact will differ markedly from how we recall the same event a week, a month, a year, a decade, later.
As recovery proceeds, we continue processing memories of the event, re-interpreting them, assigning different “weights” and meanings to the bits that make them up, until finally, we have re-shaped the original into something we can live with, or stash, or suppress, or deal with in whatever way we can. And as Itsarumdo also points out, that’s different for each individual.

---

quote:

---

I have shared my experience IRL with a few selected individuals since I recovered, and have nearly always regretted it. Why? Precisely because most of the time, I find the other party instantly slots me into a “class” labeled “rape victims,” from which I am then never allowed to escape. Suddenly, I find myself handled with kid gloves.

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

If you can link to a source that says "this happened" then knock yourselves out in quoting it and saying "if that did happen, then it's wrong/dangerous/inadvisable/whatever", but don't post allegations of possible misconduct based on what you think might have happened. Link to it if it's been reported. Otherwise DON'T POST IT.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
If the answer is "we don't know", then it's not appropriate in my view to say "we know he was doing something 13 years ago as a child, so let's err on the side of presuming he's still doing something".

---

It may seem unfair to the former embezzler that he can't have his old job at the bank back, but I don't think it's "inappropriate" for a bank manager to take that position.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
I think it's unlikely that the embezzler had a job at the bank 13 years ago as a child.

---