When Someone Reinforces Sexual Abuse Victim Character Assassination. What To Say?

[ms spock]

I got a little bit upset yesterday as I was out at a social thing and a guy was saying someone he used to work with had been convicted of sexual abuse of someone as a child. He said it was pretty dodgy that it would take 30 years for someone to come forward about that. I said not at all. There were many reasons that a person might not disclose sexual abuse as a child.

So then the goal posts kept shifting. He was a good bloke. The ex wife was involved and put this person up to it - yeah as if the police wouldn't be on top of that in five minutes. He commented about false memories and I said well the research shows that only 4% are false. So on and so forth until we got to character assassination of the victim of sexual abuse. I answered most of it calmly.

But I got to a point of not really knowing what to say. I said often there were many survivors of a sexual predator and the guy told me only one person had come forward in this case - but I got the newspapers today and in fact another person had come forward as well. So I think this guy (at the social function) is coming from the place of he is a nice guy so I can't believe someone I know did this.

I said that to him that it is really hard for people to come to terms with the fact that a friend of theirs has done this - and you know he then distanced himself from the bloke.

But the sex offender was a real piece of work and when I read the newspapers this morning another person had come forward during the case as well. Someone who hadn't spoken to the first claimant and the jury saw their testimony as corroborating the first claimant's story.

I know it is hard for people to accept that someone they know is a child rapist! But it did unnerve me a fair bit - I have thought about it a lot. I am not highly triggered or anything, just at loss for words in some ways. Which is not unreasonable.

What could I have done to manage this situation better? I let it go after a bit or the other guy let it go and we talked about other things.

I just was lost a bit later thinking, of all people I really would expect to be able to argue this one better. All the stuff this guy was saying is what my Father's friends said about him. All the stuff that guy is saying is all the stuff my Father said. But I didn't really have the ability to stand up as much as a I could have.

It was frustrating that someone can be convicted in a court of law and people choose to believe that he is still innocent.

How do I argue this in a logical and rational manner?

Any suggestions?

 

[EveHarrington]

:hug:

I am not finding fault in your behavior/words in the least in this interaction.

I'm not sure if I'm reading this wrong, but I suspect that what I'm not reading is important------it's hard to convey the 360 degree situation in text as one cannot fully appreciate the subtleties of tone, volume, body language, and so on.

I want to say that while you may feel like you could have handled it better, I think you handled it quite well. It's a tough conversation for anyone to have, even more so if you are a survivor.

I give you credit for wanting to improve in the future, but also want to encourage you to feel that you handled the situation in a very respectable way. You were factual, didn't become hot headed, and stayed grounded.

 

[ms spock]

Fair Point @EveHarrington! Thanks for the feedback! You are correct. I appreciate the reframing.

I did do some research when I came home so I am a little bit better prepared. I actually did stay grounded. I did comfort eat a bit afterwards. But I realised that and stopped that.

I did do okay after all!

 

[Abstract]

I think you did all you could do. I've started accepting that I have to have some acceptance of peoples prejudice or lack of understanding.

This sort of thing is a constant source of discomfort/pain for me as close friends were/are friends of Rolf Harris. They don't know anything about my history but it has started up sexual abuse as a topic and the same things are said as you mention above and much more. Its spread into conversations about just about every sexual assault in the news and they now discuss all through the lens of not believing the victim. Rplf Harris Innocent = everyone is innocent. Even pointing out how hard it is to convict and how we need to believe in the process of the law doesn't work so I now just don't engage and try to block the words from my mind.

I guess people don't believe what they don't want to believe or what they don't understand. Its painful.

 

[alexabroad]

I think you also shouldn't underestimate what you might have accomplished. If he's a reflective guy, this might be the beginning of some deeper thinking for him. I think it's really hard for most people to take challenges to their conceptions of the world in the moment (especially in regards to such big issues of morality-- who wants to imagine that sexual assault, not to mention cases involving children, is so common and near to home as a former coworker? Most of us want to imagine we can tell who the baddies are. We want them to be faceless monsters, not our neighbors.). But maybe later, in the comfort of his own home or just out of the situation in which he has to immediately give answer for all of his thoughts and feelings about this big issue, he'll reevaluate. Maybe the next time he comes across a case like this (and sadly, there will be a next time, although he probably won't know the person) he won't approach it the same way.

In the interest of not seeming overly optimistic, this is how all of my changes in opinion have taken place. No one has ever convinced me of something when I thought otherwise in a single conversation, because I (and a lot of people) are always on the defensive in debates. But later, I've continued to think about what they said and it has affected me. And anyway, it seems like you did all you could have, regardless. It's always jarring to think about people who react to news like this, but then I have to remember that for a lot of people, this isn't something that they've had to spend a lot of time thinking or learning about.

 

[ms spock]

I so feel for you @Abstract.

this guy had worked with Rolf Harris and commented on that as well. But he didn't defend him - his guilt is believed in this particular instance.

It seems no matter how much evidence or how many court convictions someone has - some will not believe that people that they like are sex offenders.

I feel for you that you have had to accept this - and I guess Radical Acceptance will be a process for me as well.

 

[ms spock]

In the interest of not seeming overly optimistic, this is how all of my changes in opinion have taken place. No one has ever convinced me of something when I thought otherwise in a single conversation, because I (and a lot of people) are always on the defensive in debates. But later, I've continued to think about what they said and it has affected me. And anyway, it seems like you did all you could have, regardless. It's always jarring to think about people who react to news like this, but then I have to remember that for a lot of people, this isn't something that they've had to spend a lot of time thinking or learning about.

The first time of thinking about this would be very hard. It has been the fabric of my life - and always wondering if I would be believed or if I was believed and losing my whole family because of it - I have given this some considerable time and energy as well as a lot of thought. So I don't ever think that this could be the first time that a person is dealing with, thinking about or discussing it.

 

[Friday]

Actually, I think you handled it quite well, especially in letting the subject drop and moving onto other topics after calmly disagreeing for awhile.

There's a psychological principle (that I can't remember the name of) that shows that the more a person is both proven wrong AND forced/chooses to argue it, the more steadfast they become in their beliefs. No matter how much evidence stacks up against them. So, actually, one of the BEST tactics is to briefly disagree, then move onto another topic... Because that allows the other person to actually consider what they've been told, reflect, and change their opinion if they so desire.

This is why when laws (or policies) are shown to be ineffective, there will actually be a period of several months/years where those selfsame laws (or policies) are enforced more strongly, and even written more into code.

A cooling off period, meanwhile, affects change wicked fast. Here's the information, do with it as you will, moving on. Both individuals and institutions tend to sort of brace themselves for an attack... And then when there isn't one? Actually look at the information. And then, more often than not, draw reasonable conclusions.

It's driving me nuts I can't remember the name of this process. It's been studied to bits, and is one of the few things that transcends culture/ age/ numbers/ etc. Although perhaps not surprising, since most cultures have some version of

"A man convinced against his will, is of the same opinion, still."

 

[alexabroad]

The first time of thinking about this would be very hard. It has been the fabric of my life - and always wondering if I would be believed or if I was believed and losing my whole family because of it - I have given this some considerable time and energy as well as a lot of thought. So I don't ever think that this could be the first time that a person is dealing with, thinking about or discussing it.

Yep, that's a problem I have in these conversations too. Also the tendency for skepticism (that I think we generally encourage in debates and life in general, because it seems less intelligent to take anything immediately as true when it's given to you) is really hard for people to step away from. We encourage objectivity and measured reasoning so much that a lot of people approach all situations as skeptics, so anything that seems "doubtful" to them becomes a stepping stone for skepticism, without realizing the implications of that in highly complex and traumatic situations.

As shitty as that is to deal with when you're all too aware of how big the fear of not being believed is, at least it makes it a little clearer about why otherwise good and fair people can be so quick to disbelieve. For him, casting doubt on her probably didn't even strike him as a major position or strong stance to take. Gag.

 

[Fadeaway]

@Ms Spock You should really be proud of yourself, as everyone else said, you handled it very well.

@Friday That makes so much sense.

 

[shimmerz]

How do I argue this in a logical and rational manner?

Took me at least 10 years of blowing away belief systems that were so deeply ingrained even about myself, let alone societal, familial, cultural belief systems. And actually, when I was forced to see that my belief systems were all fudged up, I have to tell you, it took me down hard and I haven't recovered since.

It is no wonder people do somersaults in their brain to try to come to terms with how this stuff is happening around them and
a) they don't do anything about it
b) the fact that they don't have courage to fight for the victim(s)
c) they don't want to 'rock their cozy little delusional boat'
d) sheist runs downhill. Easiest to blame the one who cannot defend themselves

I think you did great Spock. You held it together, you were able to focus on the conversation and hold your own. Perhaps though, your expectations were a bit high. If it has taken us decades to get to where we are in our belief systems, we can't possibly think that others, who have been brainwashed since birth that there is justice for these wrongs, that it isn't as prevalent a part of society as it is, that monsters live among us and continue to victimize......

It takes years of dedicated practice and immense courage to face up to these facts. Society has been trained not to care.

 

[Deleted member 541]

@Ms Spock You can't argue or educate ignorance. Under the circumstances I think you did an amazing job.