Is it true that all perpetrators were victims

[Rad_w]

My therapist recently told me that all pedophiles and perpetrators of SA or grooming against children or teenagers were victims of CSA themselves when they were kids.
I’m just wondering what everyone thinks of this take. Is it true?

 

[Sideways]

. Is it true?

No.

They are marginally more likely to become sex offenders if they have a history of child sex abuse. Marginally.

 

[Teasel]

I don't think it's true either.

 

[Rose White]

I don’t think it’s true. It is my understanding that dark personality traits arise spontaneously in individuals, from birth and/or due to some environmental conditioning. An individual with dark personality traits may abuse others and lead to a sort of chain or domino effect of abuse, where some people affected will stop the chain of abuse. In my opinion there is an assortment of reasons including but not always due to previous abuse.

 

[Manuka Honey]

My therapist recently told me that all pedophiles and perpetrators of SA or grooming against children or teenagers were victims of CSA themselves when they were kids.
I’m just wondering what everyone thinks of this take. Is it true?

Don’t know and don’t care about perp’s past, no.

 

[scout86]

Not true. (I can't help but wonder why your T said that.) I'm sure there are lots of articles out there. This is the first one I found.

link

 

[Friday]

In school we were taught that nearly all perpetrators were victims themselves, but only a tiny percentage of victims become perpetrators.

Squares and rectangles.
All squares are rectangles, but few rectangles are squares.

I’ve yet to read anything contradicting that, but it’s also not an interest I care enough about to keep up to date on.

 

[arfie]

dunno about the global truth, but it runs 100% among the known perps from my child prostitute days in the 60's and 70's. no, i cannot count the random janes and johns as known perps. i don't even count them as fully human and never had the slightest desire to know any of them.

i'll heartily second @Friday 's assertion than only a tiny percentage of victims become perpetrators, though a tragic percentage suicide rather than take their place on that great mandella. i lost two brothers to that choice and mostly agree with them that it was the more honorable option.

 

[Freida]

Ya, I'm gonna disagree with your t on this too. Alot of them? maybe. But all? Nope

The bigger question is --- Does it matter?

People who abuse choose to abuse. They might have been victims themselves or might not.
But at some point they make the conscious choice to victimize others.

Which makes me wonder what your t's point was.

 

[Rad_w]

(I can't help but wonder why your T said that.)

Which makes me wonder what your t's point was.

Yeah, I don't know why she said that. In the same comment, she also shared that she somewhat recently found out her biological father was a perpetrator (not against her, but many other children), along with discussing how she suspects he was victimized. I think her generalization may be an attempt to humanize him and make things easier to process, but I don't know.
I was pretty upset though, because I had just got done sharing how angry I was at my abusers--this was one of the first times I was able to openly express this anger--and she responded with this. I just felt like it was an unhelpful and unnecessary comment in that moment. Also, I'm still a kid in high school, and everything is already really hard for me to wrap my head around, and this just made it a lot more complicated and confusing for me.

 

[sidptitala]

no, i don't think that´s true at all. 'hurt people hurt people' is in my opinion not relevant to abuse- abusers hurt people with less power because it gives them pleasure, and they believe they have the right to that.

she also shared that she somewhat recently found out her biological father was a perpetrator (not against her, but many other children), along with discussing how she suspects he was victimized. I think her generalization may be an attempt to humanize him and make things easier to process, but I don't know.

100%. this is a way of minimizing the harm he has done by painting a false equivalence between him and his child victims.

Also, I'm still a kid in high school, and everything is already really hard for me to wrap my head around, and this just made it a lot more complicated and confusing for me.

this must be so confusing for you. your judgement is completely right- people have a lot of very misguided ideas about abuse. do you have the option of changing to another therapist? it sounds like your anger is going to be healing for you, and it would be better if you can find a therapist who will honour that and not try to humanize people who did terrible things to you. that's not your responsibility at all. your responsibility is to heal.

 

[Movingforward10]

Yeah, I don't know why she said that. In the same comment, she also shared that she somewhat recently found out her biological father was a perpetrator (not against her, but many other children), along with discussing how she suspects he was victimized. I think her generalization may be an attempt to humanize him and make things easier to process, but I don't know.
I was pretty upset though, because I had just got done sharing how angry I was at my abusers--this was one of the first times I was able to openly express this anger--and she responded with this. I just felt like it was an unhelpful and unnecessary comment in that moment. Also, I'm still a kid in high school, and everything is already really hard for me to wrap my head around, and this just made it a lot more complicated and confusing for me.

She used self disclosure and made it about her. And this has caused a rupture between you.
you were sharing, bravely, your feelings. And she invalidates and says this.

there was no need for her to share about her dad and her views about abusers.
she needed to explore your anger and your feelings.

can you raise this with her?