Conference quark::mennotes-v1

    
    	RE: .0
    
    	 In your opening paragraph you stated that abuse ranging from
    	1 in 3 to 9 out of 10 children. Yet, in the article you entered
    	three of the studies stated ~10-13% abuse. What I'd like to
    	know is how you made the jump from 10-13% being equal to 9
    	out of every 10 children??? It just doesn't add up.....
    
    	Like the article suggested, I really don't think abuse has
    	been on the rise, rather better reporting of absue by health
    	care and others. What I do think in some cases, and this is
    	only my opinion, no data to back it, is that because of the
    	meda hype it is blown higher than is actual. Just like the gun
    	issue, every time you hear a media account of an assualt
    	rifle case, the reporter always makes sure to over state
    	"that this weapon can shoot hundreds of rounds a second".
    	They never give the real facts that the ones every day people
    	like you and I can buy are not the fully automatic versions
    	like the ones they do show. It's all hype to catch your eye.
    	What kind of a story could they get out of it if they only
    	reported that 13% of children are being abused. By blowing
    	it up and making it sound higher, they can sensationlize(sp?)
    	it and get higher ratings on emotions.
    
    	 Also, I think out country's hang-ups concerning anything
    	with sex, let alone with children thrown in, has got everyone
    	looking at everyone. It's getting to the point if a father
    	hugs his daughter in public sexual abuse someone will suggest
    	his motives are sexual. I've seen this happen with my own eyes!
    	I couldn't beleieve it, I was at a softball games my son and
    	daughter was in and the father(I assume her dad) gave her a
    	big hug and a pat on the behind after she hit a home run. Wouldn't
    	you guess it, some lady that was sitting behind me made a comment
    	about it and said she thought "he was an unfit person to be
    	allowed to be around children". Come on now, why do people
    	always assume every move another makes has some devious motives
    	behind it. I saw the whole thing as him being proud of her
    	home run and nothing at all to do with sex!!
    
    	Just my $.02 worth,
    	G_B

    re: .1
    
    As I read it, Arpad wasn't claiming the "1 in 3" or "9 in 10"
    figures to be accurate, but that they were figures which had
    been claimed by others and that some new studies indicate such
    high numbers were inaccurate.  
    
    Steve

    I think that .1 is correct in that almost anything can be construed
    as abuse.  For the true child abuser, I think they should be punished,
    but it is a sad day when a father cannot hug his children and someone
    will question his motives.  
    
                                               Mike

    I worked with a college chum entering survey data onto the computer
    for his Incest/Abuse thesis and from this I remember that the actual
    prevalence is surprisingly high. The respondents were all over 18
    and victims of abuse involving gential contact. Not just a pat on
    the behind.
    
    Joseph

    Herb,
    Do you have any articles on women molesters?  They are out there.  Do
    you have any stats on that?  I'm asking for personal information, not
    as an attack on .-1.  Also, would you mind if I extracted that article?
    
    Karen

You want stats?  It's simple: 95% of child molesters are heterosexual men.

    RE:.7
    
    	Where did the figure 95% come from?
    
    Joe

    re-.1's re.2
    Just guessing...
    We men do 95% of every other 'bad deed' why shoulden't we lead this
    group down the path to hell and destruction too?
    
    -j
    

re .8

The figure is *not* a guess.  It's based on court studies.  

re .9

Do try and investigate at least a little before you make a fool of yourself.

    re.10
    Why diden't you look at the title of my note before you made a fool of 
    yourself?
    
    -j
    
    8^) for those that are vision impaired
    
    

re .10

Ah, but are those court studies influenced by the police/courts/society's
refusal to believe that women can't be equally responsible?

    In one of the books that I have read "Toxic Parents" there is a story
    in there of the mother holding her daughters head while the husband has
    intercourse with the daughter.  The mother told the daughter that if
    she didn't do this then he would leave her (the mother). An extreme
    case?  I don't think so.
    
    Karen

re .17

Say what?  Time for remedial English lessons again...

I did *NOT* say "95% of heterosexual men are child molesters".

I did say "95% of child molesters are heterosexual men".

These sentences are different.  They say different things.  

The first sentence may be construed as an attack on heterosexual men (BTW, 
where did 'white' come into it?).

The second sentence cannot be construed as an attack on heterosexual men, 
unless it is corroborated by a sentence similar to the first (because it 
does not say what percentage of heterosexual men are child molesters).  It 
was not thus corroborated, and therefore cannot be so construed.  I therefore 
did not attack heterosexual men.

Got it?

>           <<< Note 358.7 by TRODON::SIMPSON "PCI with altitude!" >>>
>
>You want stats?  It's simple: 95% of child molesters are heterosexual men.
>
>           <<< Note 358.10 by TRODON::SIMPSON "PCI with altitude!" >>>
>
>
>The figure is *not* a guess.  It's based on court studies.  

    This statistic doesn't indicate that 95% of all child molesters are
    heterosexual men.  It only indicates that 95% of all who are prosecuted
    for child molestation are heterosexual men.
    
    Does this statistic reflect the actual demography of child molesters?
    I don't know.  Statistics like these and anecdotal evidence seem to
    indicate that there are more male molesters than female, and that there
    are more female victims than male, so my guess is that this statistic is
    not wildly off the mark.
    
    					andrew  
    

    
    
    Last night, a movie triggered some before unmentioned memories from
    my wife's childhood. She was molested for several years, mentally
    blocking it, mostly, until now. We are in our late 30s and have been
    together for 2 yrs. She is angry and I get angrier by the minute.
    Can anyone recommend books and therapists in the Colorado Springs 
    area.
    
    Randy

    Cross post this in WOMANNOTES_V4.  Hit KP7 to add that entry to your
    notebook.
    
    Go talk to EAP.
    
    - Vick
    

    Ditto on the previous, and also: get a copy of "Courage to Heal."
    
    					andrew

    yes, get Courage to Heal,
    
    and for yourself, there is a book out for partners of survivors by
    the same authors as the Courage to Heal- Laura Davis and Ellen Bass
    (actually, this second book may only be authored by Laura Davis).
    Partners in Healing, I believe it is called.  This is a great book that
    helps partners understand what to expect and how to be helpful, but
    which also focuses on your needs as a partner of someone who is dealing
    with this.
    
    When you go to EAP, ask specifically for recommendations for counselors
    with specific experience and expertise in working with adult survivors
    of childhood sexual abuse.  There are, sad to say, therapists out there
    who blame the victim.  The Courage to Heal Workbook (this is another
    book by Laura Davis), has a chapter on how to choose a therapist, and a
    list of questions to ask a therapist to help the survivor choose.
    
    cheryl

    
    Thanks to all for the advice and references. I feel better already
    knowing that we're not the only ones in pain and that there is hope.
    
    Randy

    re .30, even now that shocks me.  I definitely believe it, but it's
    shocking for me to realize there are people like that in the world.  I
    think I missed a lot growing up in the country, and some of it, I was
    very lucky to have missed.
    
    Lorna
    

    In the country there are fewer people to turn to for help.
    
    Ray

    True...maybe I was just lucky.
    
    Lorna
    

    re: .32
    
    Growing up in small town America, or even out in the country, is no
    protection against having to deal with men who like to chase after
    young boys.  Trust me.
    
    Mike

    Well I'll check in to say I was never sexually abused as a child.
    I have no first-hand knowledge of how extensive sexual abuse of
    boys might be.  If the stats are accurate, I should count myself
    lucky...

    My interest in the topic is two-fold.

    1) Simple compassion.  Clearly this kind of thing is incredibly 
    	damaging to children.  Frank discussion should allow us to
    	provide better support to victims and increased knowledge to
    	identify and stop perpetrators.

    2) Charges of pedophilia/pederasty are frequently used against
    	normal homosexual men as a means to condemn homosexuality
    	in general.  As an activist in the gay liberation movement, 
    	this is obviously of great concern to me.

    I applaud your efforts in addressing such a sensitive topic in this
    forum, Herb.

    /Greg

    Ah, yes...the neighborhood pedophile....We had this oriental
    gentleman who used to love little girls.  He would offer candy,
    or ask to play "catch-me-if-you-can" with us. (if we were caught,
    he could kiss us)  Looking back, we all thought he was a harmless
    old man.  Then the family moved away....hmmm..I wonder....
    
    L

    Herb, while I applaud your efforts to bring this issue out into the
    open, I must say that the number of personal anecdotes that you are
    likely to see in this forum will almost assuredly not be of sufficient
    quantity to engender a lot of conversation.  Even the level of
    anonymity that is available here will likely not be enough to stir many
    men to come forward.
    
    Now, I say this not to discourage what you are trying to do, but to
    remind all and sundry that, typically, men just aren't very comfortable
    discussing such things.  Trust me on this, please. 
    
    Mike 
    Mike

Mike Smith, having attended seminary himself, is about the last person
I'd expect will ever defend pedophiles among the priesthood, nor the
church for harboring them; his willingness to face down apologists for
the catholic church has been seen many times in soapbox.

DougO

    Herb,
    
    When you used the word "shame", you used the most precise word I can
    think of to describe how men would feel about spilling their guts on
    this issue.  And the anonymity that can be offered in this sort of
    forum is quite far from absolute.   No reflection on Steve Lionel
    intended here (whom I don't know beyond having exchanged some mail
    relating to his moderating duties and from reading his entries in this
    conference).  I would say the same no matter who the moderator is.
    
    Mike
                                                       

Re: .44

I share your view regarding any perceived "anonymity" in this or any conference.
I do the best I can regarding protecting the identity of anonymous contributors,
but I wouldn't want anyone to bet their life or career on my ability or
willingness to do so.  There is no "shield law" for moderators, and if my
management insists, I must reveal the identity of an anonymous noter.  (This
has never happened to date, and it probably never will as I will tend to reject
contributions which I think are likely to cause trouble for Digital and the
noter.)

The truth is that there is always some level of risk involved in "admissions",
no matter where or how you make them.  Some people are comfortable with the
protections offered by anonymous notes, or letters to advice columnists, others
are not.  But even if protection was total, I don't think anything useful would
come of an invitation such as Herb has proposed.

				Steve

    
    
    The reality of the situation, for me, is that the "shame" of being
    abused has to be done away with.  THE ABUSED ARE NOT THE GUILTY
    PARTIES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!   And, the only way, for me, to rid myself of
    that same is to acknowledge the abuse (first in therapy and, later, to
    others).  You might find it interesting, though, that I don't hesitate
    in the least to acknowledge the fact that I was abused in this
    relatively public forum.  Yet, the immediate members of my family are,
    to my knowledge, unaware of the abuse.  I have actively chosen to
    shield them from that knowledge.  I'm sure it would devastate my mother
    (probably even more than the news of my being gay).  I have a feeling
    that my father would want revenge -- he'd kill someone; the perp., or
    the principal, or ...  That's just the way he is.
    
    What I also find "funny" is that I'm convinced, through some things my
    mom has said and through her behaviors when the subject of abuse has
    come up, that my mom was, at sometime, the victim of abuse.  She speaks
    in very hateful terms of one of her uncles -- I've often wondered.
    
         GJD

    	Doesn't seem very strange that those people to whom we entrust our
    children and ourselves are often the people who take advantage of it??
    
    	As a catholic, I find it absolutely inconceivable that any 'normal'
    human being would want to go through life without experiencing those
    things that 'most' people confess to be the greatest part of living.
    Birth of a child, love of another and receiving same, intimate time and
    even sexual fulfillment. I have many relatives that are in the clergy.
    Both nuns and priests. Have a few who decided to leave the orders.
    
    	What I have an extreme problem with, is the church's history of
    covering up and transferring priests that need therapy or neutering.
    They've historically taken money that others have paid to continue
    church operation and paid it to families to keep quiet. Keeping quiet
    doesn't help the child, doesn't help the church, doesn't help the
    clergy with problems, and certainly doesn't do a heck of a lot for
    organized religion. Then on the same vein are the Jim Bakers, Jimmy
    Swaggerts, and others........
    
    Ken  

    re .46
    
    I wish you had made it clear that you were not speaking Ex Cathedra
    (because in fact I feel like you were using the implicit authority and
    leverage of moderatorship to advance a position. In the very least, by
    not stating clearly that you were speaking individually, I believe you
    showed insensitivity to your moderator leverage.
    With regard to your specific comments ...
    
<But even if protection was total, I don't think anything useful would
<come of an invitation such as Herb has proposed.

    In my opinion, as long as men in authority make comments like the
    above, there is little danger that anything useful ever COULD come of
    my invitation.
    

    <Doesn't seem very strange that those people to whom we entrust our
    <children and ourselves are often the people who take advantage of it??

    It doesn't seem strange to me, in fact it seems inevitable that
    victimizers would swarm to where their wouldbe victims are.
    And the most successful victimizers would be those who had insinuated
    themselves into positions of trust. 
    
    The average butcher shop, bakery, or chandlery is hardly the place to find
    many child molesters.  M-F, or Sunday schools on the other hand ...
        
    But NO relationship provides a greater imbalance in authority and a
    greater opportunity for undiscovered 'suceess' than the one between a
    priest and an acolyte. Far more dramatic an imbalance than between a
    teacher and student, far more dramatic even than between a parent and
    child. (He's got God on his side.) Fr Porter used the confessional!

Re: .49

Herb, what "position" am I supposed to be "advancing"?  I was simply responding
to a question about my possible role regarding anonymous contributions. 

			Steve

actually, Steve, I was surprised to see your comment re "nothing useful".
That smacks of trashing the purpose of the whole file, disparaging a topic
for which Herb had appealed for open discussion.  If you feel that way, you
should close up mennotes and go home.  If you don't, then you ought retract
the statement that gave the appearance.

DougO

    I saw Steve's comment as echoing my thoughts that, because the
    available anonymity in a notes conference is less than absolute, and
    because this is a very difficult subject for men who experienced such
    abuse as boys, that such men are not likely to want to discuss it in
    such a public forum.  I saw no attempt to misuse his moderator position
    by way of directing the discussion, but rather another noter giving his
    opinion.
    
    One man's perspective, anyway.
    
    Mike

Re: .52

Doug, please reread my note, carefully this time.  Thanks.

		Steve

ok, Steve, I've gone back and carefully reread your .46.  This is the
exact text of the statement that still bothers me:

> But even if protection was total, I don't think anything useful would
> come of an invitation such as Herb has proposed.

Perhaps you and I have different ideas of what that invitation really is.
I'm of the impression, and I'll go back and check this, that he invites
discussion from men who have experienced childhood abuse.  What he thinks
will come of it is recognition of the size of the problem in society.  In
this, I agree with him.  I think this would be something "useful" from 
his proposal.  Please tell me why you disagree.

DougO

ps- well, turns out I can't check this; the note which contained Herb's
invitation is no longer present.

    Would someone define "sexual abuse" of children for me?
                  ------

    For example ... suppose a young male (10 years old) is in the same bed
    with another male who is 30 years old ... the 30 year old "fondles" the
    genitals of the 10 year old - no oral sex, no penetration of any kind,
    just fondling ... is this sexual abuse?

    I guess I'm asking ... is ANY sexual contact with a minor (not necessarily
    penetration of one by the other) defined as "abuse"?

    Bubba

    fondling a 10 year old?  Sure, that's abuse.  The definitions I've seen
    on it have been oriented to behavior which involves abusing the
    position of trust and authority that an adult has over the child.
    Does that help?
    
    DougO

    What's the difference between abuse and molestation?

    RE: .58
    
    Thanks, Mike, those were the words that I was looking for ... good
    question.
    
    DougO ... I don't recall ever hearing a "legal" definition - perhaps
    that is what I'm looking for.
    
    I know that here in Beelersfield we've recently had some cases come to
    trial where a guy "touched" younger males in such a way as to be called
    "molestation".
    
    Bubba

    seems to me that the difference between abuse and molestation is in 
    who would use the words.  A cop or a DA would say molestation, a
    psychologist or family member dealing with the aftermath would say
    abuse...to describe the same incident.  No?
    
    DougO

    re .55
    
    Doug,
    
    I think that what Steve is saying is that some men may not want to come
    foreward with, even anonymously, because it just feels too vulnerable. 
    Please remember that sexual abuse survivors have very little or no
    trust in people.  Even telling one person can create all sorts of
    internal reactions that can be difficult to control.  It can even set
    the healing process back for awhile.
    
    What Herb is asking for is wonderful, but some men may not be far
    enough along in their recovery to be able to do this.
    
    Karen

    re .56
    
    This is the definition of incest from the book 'Secret Survivors' by E.
    Sue Blume.  (IMHO, the terms incest, sexual abuse and molestation are
    used interchangeably.  They all mean the same thing.)
    
    Incest can be seen as the imposition of sexually inapporpriate acts, or
    acts with sexual overtones, by-or any use of a minor child to meet the
    sexual or sexual/emotional needs of-one or more persons who derive
    authority through ongoing emotional bonding with that child.
    
    In giving the above definition, please remember the majority of abusers
    are someone the child knows.  It's a family member, priest, teacher,
    neighbor etc.  Sexual abuse can include inappropriate comments, such as
    commenting on a teenage girls developing breasts, which is very
    shaming.  IMHO, sexual abuse, molestation, or incest, however you term
    it is any sexual comment or act made to a child.  Children simply are
    not emotionally or mentally capable to understand sexual teasing. 
    Talking about sex when a child asks, *as long as it is kept
    age-appropriate* is not sexual abuse.
    
    The example you gave, Bubba, is sexual abuse.  A 10-year old does not 
    have the emotional or mental maturity to be able to handle such an 
    incident.  A 30-year-old male or female has no business fondling a ten 
    year old.  It is betraying his/her innocence.
    
    Karen

Karen has it about right in .61.  Though I think it would be wonderful if
a large number of abuse survivors came forward to relate their experiences,
and I'd like to think that I can be trusted to do what I can to protect
authors' anonymity, I am only too aware that the protection I can offer is
NOT absolute and I would not want anyone to believe that there would be zero
risk in coming forward.

But perhaps more to the point is that I don't think that even promises of
absolute anonymity would draw enough stories to be significant, which is
why I thought it would be a "useless exercise".

Make no mistake, I am very careful to do all I can to protect the identity
of anonymous authors.  I do not reveal their identity to anyone else, not 
my co-moderators or even my wife.  The file in which I record the authors'
names is kept encrypted on a system which only I use, and only I know the
encryption key.  But the risk is not zero.  If there are those who are
satisfied with these protections who wish to tell their stories, please, by
all means, send me your text and a proposed title and I'll post it for you.

				Steve

    From Bradshaw's The Family

    Sexual abuse involves whole families. It can be divided as follows
    (classification from Pia Mellody)

    1.	Physical Sexual Abuse

    	This involves hands-on touching in a sexual way. The range of abusive
    behaviors that are sexual include sexualized hugging or kissing; any kind
    of sexual touching or fondling; oral and anal sex; masturbation of the
    victim or forcing the victim to masturbate the offender; sexual intercourse

    2.	Overt Sexual Abuse

    	This involves voyeurism, exhibitionism. This can be outside or inside
    the home. Parents often sexually abuse children through voyeurism and
    exhibitionism. The criteria for in-home voyeurism or exhibitionism is
    whether the parent is being sexually stimulated. Sometimes the parent be be
    so out of touch with his own sexuality that he is not aware of how sexual he
    is being. The child almost always had a kind of icky feeling about it.

    	One client told me how her father would leer at her in her panties
    coming out of the bathroom. Others speak of having no privacy in the house,
    much less the bathroom. I've had a dozen male clients whose mothers bathed
    their genital parts up through age eight or nine years old.
    	Children can feel sexual around parents. This is not sexual abuse
    unless the parent originated it. It all depends on the parents. Here I;m
    not talking about a parent having a passing sexual thought or feeling. It's
    about a parent using a child for his own conscious or unconscious sexual
    sexual stimulation.

    3.	Covert Sexual Abuse

    	(a) Verbal - This involves inappropriate sexual talking. Dad or any
    significant male calling women "whores" or "cunts" or objectified sexual
    names. Or Mom or any significant females deprecating men in a sexual way.
    It also involves parents or caretakers having to know about every detail of
    one's private sexual life, asking questions about a child's sexual
    physiology or questioning for minute details about dates.
    	Covert sexual abuse involves not receiving adequate sexual information.
    I've had several female clients who didn't know what was happening when
    they began menstruating. I've had three female clients who did not know
    that  their vagina had an opening in it until they were 20 years old.
    	An overt (sic: -think this is a misprint, think 'covert' was intended)
    	An overt kind of sexual abuse occurs when Dad or Mom talk about sex in
    front of their children when the age level of their children is
    inappropriate. It also occurs when Mom or Dad make sexual remarks about the 
    sexual parts of their children's bodies. I've worked with two male clients
    who were traumatized by their mothers's jokes about the size of their
    penis. Also female clients whose fathers and stepfathers teased them about
    the size of their breasts or buttocks.

    	(b)Boundary Violation - This involves children witnessing parents in
    sexual behavior. They may walk in on it frequently because parents don't
    provide closed and locked doors. It also involves the children being allowed
    no privacy. They are walked in on in the bathroom. They are not taught to
    lock their doors or given permission to lock their doors. Parents need to
    model appropriate nudity, i.e., need to be clothed appropriate after a
    certain age.
    	Children are sexually curious. Beginning at around age three or between
    ages three to six, children start noticing parents' bodies. They are often
    obsessed with nudity. Mom and Dad need to be careful walking around nude
    with young children. If Mom is not being stimulated sexually, the nudity is
    not sexual abuse. She simply is acting in a dysfunctional way. She is not
    setting sexual boundaries.
    	The use of enemas at an early age can also be abusive in a way that
    leads to sexual dysfunction. The enemas can be a body boundary violation.

    4.	Emotional Sexual Abuse

    	Emotional sexual abuse results from cross-generational bonding. I've
    spoken of enmeshment as a way that children take on the covert needs of a
    family system. It is very common for one or both parents in a dysfunctional
    marriage to bond inappropriately with one of their children. The parents
    in effect use the child to meet their emotional needs. This relationship can
    easily become sexualized and romanticized. The daughter may become Daddy's
    Little Princess, or the son may become Mom's Little Man. In both cases the
    child is being abandoned. The parent is getting his needs met at the expense
    of the child's needs. The child needs a parent not a spouse.
    	Pia Mellody, who runs a pioneering co-dependency treatment unit at The
    Meadows in Wickenberg, Arizona, gives the following definition of emotional
    sexual abuse. She says when "one parent has a relationship with the child
    that is more important than the relationship he has with his spouse,: there
    is emotional sexual abuse.
    	Sometimes both parents emotionally bond with a child. The child tries
    to take care of both parents' feelings. I once worked with a female client
    whose father would come and get her in the middle of the night and put her
    in bed with him in the guest bedroom. He would do this many to punish his
    wife for sexually refusing him. The daughter has suffered greatly with
    confused sexual identity.
    Cross-generational bonding can occur with a parent and a child of the same
    sex. A most common form of this in our culture is mother and daughter.
    Mother often has sexualized rage, i.e., she fears and hates men. She uses
    her daughter for her emotional needs and also contaminates her daughter's
    feelings about men. I have had cases where mothers physically sexually
    abuse their daughters
    	The issue is whether the parent is there for the child's needs, rather
    than the child being there for the parent's needs. And while children have
    the capacity to be sexual in a way appropriate to their developmental level,
    whenever an adult is being sexual with a child, sexual abuse is going on.
    	Some sexual abuse also comes from older siblings. Generally sexual
    behavior by same age children is not sexually abusive. The rule of thumb is
    that when a child is experiencing sexual "acting out": at the hands of a
    child three or four years older, it is sexually abusive.

    i know, that's why the urging and that's why the suggestion of anonymity.
    
    I think the most effective way of ensuring that our sons and daughters
    go through the same experience(s) we did, is to not speak up about it
    having happened to us. I understand the shame very, very well. That is
    what ISOLATES us. And some of us told our parents and they didn't believe.
    
    It took almost 30 years for somebody to finally break the silence about
    Father Porter of Southeastern Mass, New Mexico, and multiple
    communities in Minnesota. As a result of the delay over one hundred
    kids were molested by that one animal. That one animal who was
    protected by his fellow priests, that one animal whose bosses hid or
    denied the truth and thereby -altruism aside- helped perpetuate it.
    
    An awful lota altar boys -the brightest hopes for the future church-
    know. Don't you? There are a coupla retreats annually down in Penn. that
    are for people who -as children- had been sexually abused by clergy. 

re .63:

I think that's a pretty non-standard definition of incest.  Incest involves
family members (exactly how that's defined varies from culture to culture).
If two adult siblings (for example) have consensual sex, that's incest.
Likewise, if a father rapes or seduces his minor daughter, that's incest.
The former is probably not sexual abuse, the latter most certainly is.

    In the mental health community the term incest is beginning to broaden
    outside of the family.  The description in .63 is what is becoming
    recognized as the definition within the mental health community.
    
    Karen

    see 816.2 for comments on incest/sexual abuse

    (the holocaust was mentioned in 812.121)
    By the way, severe and sustained sexual abuse on a minor is often
    viewed as more horrific even than the holocaust. The principal
    difference that I understand is that the adults in death camps at least
    had the freedom -of will and reason- to know THEIR perpetrators were
    evil. And that they need not feel guilt as Jews (or as Gypsies, or as
    Roumanians or as ...) Kids  don't have that freedom. Perhaps insight
    into this phenomenon helps offer perspective on why sexual abuse
    clergy is so obscene.

                         A PRIME TIME FIRST 

(excerpt taken from July 5, 1992 Parade Magazine, Seattle)

On Friday, September 4, 1992, Oprah Winfrey will be the host of SCARED 
SILENT, on hour-long television special airing simultaneously on CBS, 
NBC and PBS.  It will mark the first time a non-news event has been 
carried during prime time by three networks.  The subject: CHILD ABUSE.

Millions of children in this country are abused sexually, physically 
or emotionally each year.  On her TV show in 19875, Oprah revealed that 
she herself had been a victim of child abuse.  Now she and the producers 
hope SCARED SILENT will help break the silence that allows abuse to 
continue.  

The special will feature solutions-true stories that explains how abuse 
starts and how it can be stopped - as well as ways to prevent it and to 
intervene in actual cases, plus a toll-free child-abuse hotline.  IT IS 
STRONGLY RECOMMENDED THAT IF YOU ARE A SURVIVOR THAT YOU WATCH THIS 
PROGRAM WITH A SUPPORTIVE GROUP OR FRIEND.  

.67> In the mental health community the term incest is beginning to broaden
.67> outside of the family.
    
    This isn't the first time a word was twisted so that it lost some
    of its basic elements.  I'm not happy at all with this new trend
    of misusing the language.

    Mike,
    I don't think it much what you call it, incest, sexual abuse or
    molestation.  It all has the same results to the child.  Complete loss
    of innocence, trust, self-esteem etc.  This nitpicking really irritates
    me.
    
    Karen

    Karen, I think we have enough words in our language to accurately
    describe sex between an adult and a minor without misusing a very
    specific word like incest.
    
    You call it nitpicking, I call it intellectual honesty.

    Well, Mike, I understand, but alot of people were abused by close
    family friends or they have multiple perps.  All three terms are used
    interchangeably these days.  I would also suggest that you get a copy
    of the incest article from Lear's magazine.  Here is an excerpt:
    
          What exactly is incest?  The definition I use in this article
          is: any sexual abuse of a child by a relative or other person
          in a position of trust and authority over the child.  It is the
          violation of the child where he or she lives - literally and
          metaphorically.  A child molested by a stranger can run home
          for help and comfort.  A victim of incest cannot.
    
    E. Sue Bloom writes:  "If we are to understand incest, we must look not
    at the blood bond, but at the emotional bond between the victim and the
    perpetrator...The important criterion is whether there is a real
    relationship in the experience of the child."
                                                             
    There is quite a bit more in this article.  This is probably the best
    article I have seen on incest.  It tells it like it really is.  If
    anyone wants a reprint they are available from Lear's Magazine,
    Department 1, 655 Madison Ave., New York, NY  10021-8043.

    
    in case you haven't heard, mike, Lear's is now the officially
    designated source fer all Murican word usage.
    
    besides which, i don't think they even understand the point you're
    making.

    My dictionary gives "incest" as "Sexual intercourse between persons
    related within prohibited degrees".
    
    	It says nothing about whether the people involved are children or
    consenting adults (by whatever country's definition). The ostensible
    reason for incest being wrong is the increased likelihood of genetic
    defects in any children.
    
    	It is misuse of the word if the persons involved are not closely
    genetically related (one can argue about cases like "foster-mother")
    and one could even argue that it was irrelevant if one of the parties
    was too young or too old to be fertile.

    <i'm not happy at all with this new trend of misusing the language
    
    Gee, that's a shame

    Mike's not alone.  How can you expect to discuss something properly
    when certain people insist on untenable stipulative definitions?

    And -obviously- using "incest" to depict a sexual act between an adult
    and a non-related child is an incomparably greater obscenity than the
    act, right?

    re .80
    
    Not at all.  I (and I suspect Mike Z) simply wish people to use words
    properly, so that the discussion can progress.  If, for example, you
    are not talking about sexual activity within the proscribed degrees of
    relations then you are not talking about incest, and should not use the
    word.  It really is very simple.

re 358.79

> How can you expect to discuss something properly when 
> certain people insist on untenable stipulative definitions?

I suppose that it depends on what you consider the end goal of the
discussion to be; your use of the word 'properly' gives us a few hints,
though.  When I see the phrasing above, it suggests to me an approach
reminiscent of pedantic, schoolmasterish, constrictions; *this* topic
is in *this* box, *that* topic is in *that* box, words *mean* only what
the book says they mean, etc, ad nauseum, closed-mindedly.  In this only
slightly exaggerated description, the purpose of the quote discussion
endquote is to neatly label, categorize, and file the topic, without
necessarily making any real effort to understand it.  While this may 
not be how David would describe his notion of a proper discussion, past
experience has given the impression, and the above phrasing serves to,
shall we say, remind me.

This will not be the goal of everyone participating in the discussion,
so David's 'proper' discussion is not necessarily going to occur.  Other 
goals might certainly be met, however, if people are willing to accept 
that discussions don't necessarily have to drive to closed-minded and
limited conclusions circumscribed by stale, socially-sanctified terms 
born of other generations' experiences and limitations.  Folks can notice
mid-discussion that the perfect word to describe their thought doesn't
exist in the language, so some other word, close enough, will be forced
to serve with some context-specific additional meanings.  Of course, 
for folks who aren't comfortable with the expression of non-socially-
sanctified thoughts, this overloading (to borrow a C expression) becomes
a convenient target to limit the discussion to 'proper' channels.  It is
my opinion that the objections we've recently seen have been attempts to
limit discussions in this manner.

DougO

    Who the hell gave YOU the authority to decide when a word is being used
    properly. Have you never heard of a metaphor?...

    bankrupt is a perfectly good word too

    A word that has been combined with others to produce the perfectly
    serviceable phrases ...
    morally bankrupt
    spiritually bankrupt

    or crippled as another perfectly good word that has been combined with
    others to produce ...

    emotionally crippled
    psychologically crippled

    I think some other conference -English purists?- is the place to discuss
    such matters.

    I personally feel very offended when people -for whatever reason- focus
    on the definition of a word rather than the obscene act the word is
    very very clearly connoting.
    There are a certain group of people who one can predict will time after
    time after time after argue about what is being discussed.

    re .83
    
    You can feel as offended as you like.  It won't change the fact that if
    you use a word, such as incest, which has a clear and specific meaning,
    when in fact the event you are talking is not incestuous, then you have
    used the word improperly.  You are, ultimately, defeating your own
    purpose, if your purpose is better understanding of the issue.
    
    I also do not need any specific authority to insist on the proper use
    of words.  It is implicit in any understanding of how language works. 
    It is quite wrong for you or anyone else to enter a public discussion
    and try to redefine terms which have existing and, by definition,
    agreed meanings.  
    
    re .82
    
    DougO, I am quite comfortable with stipulative defintions.  If you read
    my note carefully you'll note that I referred to untenable stipulative
    definitions.  Do I really have to explain what they are, or why they
    are so dangerous?

    re:.79, .81  (::SIMPSON_D)
    
    Yes.  Exactly.  Thank you.

    Does it really matter that much when the bottom line is we are talking
    about the violation of a child?  
    
    Well, gee,  the dictionary says this, so you weren't really hurt, were
    you?  Give me a break.
    
    Karen

.83> Who the hell gave YOU the authority to decide when a word is being used
.83> properly. Have you never heard of a metaphor?...
    
    Well, for starters, the OED.
    
    We could certainly call an accidental death a murder, but that would
    be an impediment to discussing murder in a clear and accurate way.  It
    would also confuse many people who rely on standard definitions as set
    forth by law.
    
    There's really no good reason to manipulate the language.

    Once again, I understand why I find juvenile intellectual arrogance to
    be so offensive.
    It's not that one finds it important to be right, it's that one finds it
    essential to be disruptive to prove it.

.86> Does it really matter that much when the bottom line is we are talking
.86> about the violation of a child?  
    
    See, I told you we have enough words to accurately describe the
    problem, without resorting to redefining other existing words.
    
    Now, if that's what we're talking about, why call it incest?
    
    Why would you want to call it something that it isn't?

>    There's really no good reason to manipulate the language.

careful, Mikey, David just swept that strut out from under you, thus:

> I am quite comfortable with stipulative defintions...you'll note that 
> I referred to untenable stipulative definitions. 

Oh, I'm well aware of the qualifier; but your 'untenable' seems chosen
in this case to stifle discussion, not to further it.  

DougO

    speaking of impediments...
    
    Why is it that there is such a wide-spread feeling that some peoples'
    principal contribution to NOTES is to be an an impediment to
    discussions?

    re .90
    
>>    There's really no good reason to manipulate the language.

>careful, Mikey, David just swept that strut out from under you, thus:
    
    Yes, mutilate might have been a better word than manipulate.
    
>Oh, I'm well aware of the qualifier; but your 'untenable' seems chosen
>in this case to stifle discussion, not to further it.  
    
    Not at all.  For those who don't know (and there are obviously a few in
    this conference) a stipulative definition is where you define the
    meaning of a word 'for the purposes of this argument'.  Stipulative
    definitions are legitimate when the proponent intends to focus on one
    or more among many existing meanings and/or connotations.
    
    However, it is a significant test of any argument that purports to
    relate to the real world that such definitions do not stray
    significantly from the common meaning.  If you have to radically
    redefine a word to make your argument hold together then your argument
    is in deep trouble.  Your stipulative definition is then said to be
    untenable.  (An excellent example of this is Pirsig's use of the word
    'morality' in _Lila_).
    
    For me to insist that sexual relations (for example), no matter of what
    kind or degree, between an adult and a child who are not related within
    the proscribed degrees is not incestuous is not intended to stifle
    discussion.  I merely intend to clarify, for I intend to use the word
    according to its generally agreed meaning, and it serves no purpose for
    anyone else to wilfully and unnecessarily redefine it.  That stifles
    discussion, because people then become confused.

    RE: .92

    > I merely intend to clarify, for I intend to use the word
    > according to its generally agreed meaning, and it serves no purpose for
    > anyone else to wilfully and unnecessarily redefine it.  

    A change in common usage (of the word) in some circles was merely noted 
    here as a point of information.  No one willfully changed anything here.

    > That stifles discussion, because people then become confused.

    You underestimate the intelligence of the average human being.  Once a
    point of information (about the broadening of a specific term) is
    offered, continued confusion about the term sounds (IMO) willful and
    unnecessary itself.

>   If you have to radically redefine a word to make your argument hold 
>   together then your argument is in deep trouble.  Your stipulative 
>   definition is then said to be untenable. (An excellent example of 
>   this is Pirsig's use of the word 'morality' in _Lila_).

I've previously addressed this; I called this approach "reminiscent of 
pedantic, schoolmasterish, constrictions; *this* topic is in *this* box, 
*that* topic is in *that* box, words *mean* only what the book says they 
mean, etc, ad nauseum, closed-mindedly."  I;'ve also discussed the dilemna
of one who recognizes that *no* word adequately captures the thought for
which expression is sought; and the consequent necessity of overloading
a word similar in meaning.  You seem to have missed all that, David, but
I can't say I'm surprised.  Let us ignore Pirsig's "morality" and instead
focus upon his vastly overloaded "quality", from a far better-known book,
eh?

DougO

Clearly nobody has anything substantive to say on the subject of sexual
abuse of children (we all agree it's bad, right?), which is why this has
become a discussion of semantics.

    <...nobody has anything substantive to say on the subject of sexual abuse
    <of children ...>
    
    I think I would rephrase it as ...
    everybody is afraid to say anything substantive on the subject of
    sexual abuse
    
    The argument about semantics is a sympton of their skittishness (I
    think)
    

    re .95
    
    It's more than just a case of mere semantics, Gerald...It's essential 
    to any discussion to be speaking the same language.  Having certain 
    people adhere to their own invented 'definitions' only ensures that the 
    issue at hand will never get discussed because *communication* can not
    exist.
    

    RE: .97  Deb
    
    > Having certain people adhere to their own invented 'definitions' 
    > only ensures that the issue at hand will never get discussed because 
    > *communication* can not exist.
    
    Excuse me???  Where did anyone adopt their "OWN" invented definitions?
    Allow me to point out (once again) the point of information offered
    in this topic:
    
    358.67> In the mental health community the term incest is beginning 
    358.67> to broaden outside of the family.  The description in .63 is 
    358.67> what is becoming recognized as the definition within the mental 
    358.67> health community.
    
    Human beings do (actually) have the capacity to grasp such small points 
    of information without a total/complete breakdown in communication.
    
    (It ain't the end of the world.)

from 816.2 ...
The use of 'incest' to encompass those experiences recounted in [358].63,
[358].65 is used by way of convenience by mental health professionals. Most
books I have read on the subject -and I have read many- typically specify
the precise meaning of incest and then go on to point out that any sexual
experience that involves the violation of trust between an adult and a
child has a psychologically similar impact on the child as the more
narrowly defined "incest" does when one of the parties is a minor. The
authors then go on to say that for convenience they will henceforth use the
word "incest" to encompass the wider set of experiences. Knowing completely
that the common, and legal use of the word is different. People who are
experienced in this area often forget that those without comparable
experiences have difficulty when the word "incest" is used in a way that is
certainly new and perhaps even challenging..

    RE: .99  Herb
    
    Sounds pretty straight-forward to me.
    
    (I honestly don't see an entirely separate language, and/or a breakdown
    in communications, at all.)
    

    So, the complaint by our resident pedants is that the mental health
    community has no business redefining perfectly good English words.
    I see.  

    There is no word that seems to properly define sexual abuse of children
    by people who are close to that child, but yet have no blood or direct
    familial relationship.  But yet the effects of such abuse are
    qualitatively similar to those resulting from abuse by a close family
    member.  As such, it seems that there are those in the mental health
    community have chosen to expand the meaning of the word "incest".  
    Now, this wouldn't be the first time that the exact meaning of a term
    used by the mental health community differed from the meaning of that
    same term by the legal community.  Such differences are there because
    each body is trying to communicate similar, but not congruent, ideas. 
    And given that the meaning of the term "incest" as is being used within
    the confines of this discussion was defined in .63, and as the term as
    used therein does, indeed, convey a similar, but not congruent, idea to
    the legal term, I don't really see the problem.

    Except that there are those who are unwilling to accept that the
    English language is a living entity, that the meanings of perfectly
    good English words change over time to better meet the current needs of
    communication, and that this has been true ever since English came to
    be known as a language. 

    Or, there are those who simply wish to sidetrack the discussion for
    whatever personal reason they might have. 

    Mike

What I see is several very emotionally constricted people who I think are
uncomfortable in ANY situation that involves feelings of any kind. As a
substite for honest feelings I think they recurrently engage in nitpicking
that ensures that sensitive matters will not be addressed. Indeed the ONLY
sensitive matter that is addressed is their disruption. And that is never
done directly but only obliquely. What I and others mean is something like
"Will you please shut up you insensitive clod". But what it comes out as is
YOU'RE WRONG. And they 'know' they are NOT wrong, so aha!

People are not reacting to Zarlenga, Monahan, and <whatzizname> because
they are wrong (in the purely narrow strictly constructive technical sense
they AIN'T wrong), but rather because they are disruptive and insensitive.

They suck us into some stupid little argument that they can't help but
win! We don't even disagree with the words they are using. But we are so
angry with what we perceive to be their intent that we just LOSE it.
Boy are they good! 

OK, so where's the beef?

    please tell me the purpose of your question
    "Where's the beef"

See .95.  There've been a couple of "I was sexually molested" notes, but
nothing else of substance.  I submit that it's not because people feel
uncomfortable (although they do) but because nobody knows what to do
about the problem.

    I heard on the radio coming in to work this morning that  CBS Evening
    News will do a report tonight on the false accusation of Sexual 
    abuse and it's effects.  

    Being somewhat cynical I expect them to take the "we can't take a
    chance" approach, but at least there is beginning to be some 
    exposure.

    fred();

    Looks like the pendulum has finally started to swing back to center...

    
    
    Fred,
    
      The other day I saw a show on (D) Oprah . It dealt with woen that
    molest boys. I swear this is the first time I saw a show done by Oprah,
    that was not a expose on " Men are pigs, just looky here."
    
    David

    
    
    Then you must have missed the show on woman who marry for money!
    

re: .106
    >Being somewhat cynical I expect them to take the "we can't take a
    >chance" approach, but at least there is beginning to be some 
    >exposure

Could you elaborate on what you are saying here? I know, I shouldn't try to get 
back to the topic, but what the heck. Do you think childhood sexual abuse is
on the rise or that it appears so due to false reporting? I would be interested
in seeing what CBS had to say about it.
Thanx
Karl

    One thing certainly seems to be clear, and that is that the REPORTING
    both to authorities and ultimately to the media of child abuse has been
    on the rise.  Whether incidents of child abuse have risen or not I have
    no idea.  But the general awareness of child abuse and the increased
    attention to it in the media certainly would give a person the
    impression that it is on the rise whether it is or not.