I think I'm slowly getting closer to some of the core differences creating misunderstanding about the original article's major points.
Our culture of silence and shame is essentially trying to steal a person's
'freedom to be human'. This includes freedom to be themselves, freedom to be broken, freedom to make mistakes, freedom to be different, freedom to cry in public, freedom to openly be just a hurt victim, freedom to still love their family member who's abusive, freedom to have bad behavior, freedom to be selfish, freedom to not care about others, freedom to share their truth even if it's distasteful.
It is dehumanizing to paint a child sexual abuser as a pure monster that is all bad. It's inaccurate, they have past bad behavior which was abusive, and points towards weak or poor character. But they are still human, and many still have good qualities and traits.
But it's also dehumanizing, when we as a society make it difficult for victims to share all their story. Part of the abuse is when they don't feel fully heard. But more so, it's dehumanizing, when we don't see all parts of their humanity. We see only one aspect of themselves and overlook the rest of their humanness.
Some who blame the victim, want to paint them as predators, people who might be crying wolf, or people who are ruining the party and be a downer by sharing a story that triggers others.
Rescuing the victim is also a way of dehumanizing others. We see them as a helpless victim. We take on responsibility of soothing their feelings and providing safety, often times without even asking if the other needs or wants it. Maybe they don't want to be rescued, maybe they aren't in as big of a rush, they could still be trying to make sense of their victim experience. Exploring their broken-ness. Trying to self-heal by making friends with, and talking to their broken human parts.
"It seems impossible to love people who hurt and disappoint us. Yet there are no other people." - Frank Andrews
In fantasy world there might be a place where there are people who aren't broken, and won't hurt and disappoint us. But in the real world with real human beings, that is exactly the type of people everyone deals with.
If everyone is broken, how can we just blanket banish a percentage that we deem as broken beyond repair?
It wasn't that long ago after the Vietnam War, veterans came back home to very negative and cold receptions. Some got the cold shoulder, others got spit in the face, many in the public looked down upon them, some would call them names like 'baby killers'. The Vietnam vets who came back with PTSD were even further banished from society, they were driven to alcoholism and other addictions, there was limited therapies or treatments for PTSD at the time. So since these people were deemed broken beyond repair, society just ignored them, in a sense 'threw them away.'
This is the danger of mob mentality.
Isn't this very similar logic behind dehumanizing child sexual abusers. They don't respond to treatment, therefore they're broken. Let's throw them all away!
But these abusers are still people too, they have a mom and dad, some have a spouse and children. Many of them who might still love them. They aren't full time abusers, some like Woody Allen can make very good movies, which is giving back to society.
If we just throw away all these types of people, we also throw away all the potential benefits that society can get from them.
And where does the line get drawn? What if PTSD survivors become too weird and uncomfortable for society to deal with, treatment doesn't work good enough. Do you want to support a mob mentality that might later banish PTSD survivors too?
Predator types of aggressive personalities can provide for society. Often they might be the ones doing all the dirty work. They would have the traits that would make for a good solder, medical surgeons, lawyers, politicians, corporate CEOs, police officers, financial traders, etc.
Look at what Steve Jobs has given to society, without his vision, people wouldn't have all the technology and convenience that Apple corporation has pioneered. But if you look at his biography he wasn't a very nice guy. He was known to be extremely abusive to his employees. And it's also commonly known that their profits are made on the backs of very cheap and likely abusive labor in China. But we also benefit from that exploitation of the poor with relatively cheap prices for technology gadgets.
Child sexual abuse is simply one type of behavior that predator types choose to act out with. If we demonize this behavior, it simply pushes it further into the shadows. Or the clever predators find other ways to exert their control and abuse upon others, in a way they won't get caught, or in a way that is more socially acceptable.
If we want to get to the root, let's just throw away all predator types. That might be upwards of 20-30% of the population. Are we willing to take on this infinitely difficult challenge? How do we even identify all of them? Who's going to pay for it? And who's going to do the enforcing for this? And who's going to protect us from these predator types if they revolt back against us?
We all have a shared humanity. Predators need us just as much as we need them as a society in whole.
------------------
now onto trying to address some personal comments:
@
Valentino I hear you. Thank you for the post above; I understood it. I just can't see where people aren't being heard on the thread? I think I have understood the majority of the posts. I think I have heard people, even if I struggle to respond to it all. Maybe my brain will click at some point on this one. I can't see what I'm missing. I take on board and understand your points about society. However, I can't see this thread as reinforcing a culture of silence. I guess I'm not understanding that.
I'm not saying that it's happening ONLY in this thread. It's actually quite common through-out society. Including this support forum and including this discussion thread. Though I'd dare say that support groups tend to a bit worse than normal society, it is pretty common for me to see people starving for genuine acceptance within support groups online and in real life.
Your strong empathy might be affective empathy or 'warm empathy'... there is also cognitive empathy which is sometimes called 'cold empathy', I like the label
'perspective taking'.. "It's like walking a mile in someone else's shoe." Not everyone has natural strong perspective taking skills, but it can be developed. Though sometimes warm empathy can get in the way of perspective taking or potentially create a blindness to it. I would identify my strength is perspective taking, and my warm empathy is weak and possibly a bit slow. So with perspective taking I can feel people's deep emotions, but am slower to recognize the lighter emotions on the surface.
I am not intentionally sharing to try to specifically judge or change anyone's particular behavior. I'm attempting at providing different perspectives, and maybe trying to address bigger perspectives that I feel others aren't able to see clearly or are unwilling to address consciously.
I have though been a bit concerned that @
Lost Pup's request to start a new thread to deal with what you were trying to bring into discussion went unheard. The topic is very much worthy of discussion but there is too much now goiing on in this thread for it to be operating clearly.
My understanding of Lost Pop's request for a new thread was addressed only about child pornography as a side topic. I wasn't trying to intentionally side track it with child porn, I was using those examples to try to illustrate how rigid 100% type statements can be subtly shaming.
I think it's unfortunate when people overly worry about going off topic. Sometimes that's right when conversations are starting to get good, and dots are getting connected. Yes, there are issues when people might hi-jack a topic with something totally unrelated. But often times, the more flexible and organic the conversation goes, the more potential for insights or deeper understanding.
Of course since Lost Pup is the originator, feels that this thread is getting taken over or too side tracked, I welcome that feedback.
I don't know who your comments are aimed at, but since they are vaguely stated, several of us are no doubt left feeling they are rather unjustifiably meant for us. None of us has the right to believe we have a better take on such hefty issues than anyone else. Perhaps you didn't intend for that to be the meaning conveyed.
My comments are addressed in general, I am not personally trying judge or change any particular person's behavior. I'm trying to look at and talk from an impersonal perspective. But the impersonal can still watch and see patterns of behavior. I do disagree with the right to believe statement, I think each individual has the right to believe what they believe. Even if it's a belief that they have a better or worse take than others. I think that it's quite common that people give up their right to believe and push it upon experts or others to tell them what is acceptable to believe. Giving up that right can cause all sorts of unexpected side effects.
Your view is only your view. In terms of your entitlement to express a view, it's no more or less than anyone else's. Maybe some others don't agree with your view. If so, that doesn't mean they didn't hear, it means they didn't agree. Those are different things.
You're take is pretty close. I'm impressed. However I don't think see it about agreement or expressing views. I don't own the truth, but I can try to express my truth as genuinely and honest as I can, in an attempt to get others to share their truth. Then through that exploration of shared truths maybe we can better figure out what is really true, real and practical.
Maybe I'm critiquing a style of conversation where it seems that people are expressing their views as a way to define their truth, and then simply agreeing or disagreeing with other's views. It seems the motivation is more about being right or feeling good. Instead of exploring facts to find what's true and also what's false.
-------------
Anyway, it's fascinating to see what looks like a common pattern. I write something substantial to address bigger issues, but I somehow end up responding to minor details of my writing style, observations, beliefs, or even my challenges to my intention, motivations or character. Is it me or is it the topic? I saw a similar pattern with responses towards the original article.
