Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Kotaku)   13 year old boy rapes his 8 year old sister. Let's place the blame where it truly belongs, the Xbox he used to watch the porn that inspired him   ( kotaku.com) divider line
    More: Sick  
•       •       •

13460 clicks; posted to Main » on 05 Feb 2014 at 4:20 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



222 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2014-02-06 01:11:48 AM  

m00: vicioushobbit: m00: vicioushobbit: Talking to a counselor =/= knowing that somebody is still jacking off to the shiat that traumatized you.

/the more you know...

Look I don't disagree with the conclusion -- that clearly talking to counselors does less harm than the original incident. But you can't use a statement that makes no sense because it has an obvious counter-example (within the context of the very discussion!) to get there.

It's like saying... Creationism is nonsense. I have irrefutable proof for the currently accepted scientific model -- Lord Xenu told me so.

I disagree that the statement was used incorrectly.  Just because you randomly came up with that "obvious" counter example (you are the first one in the thread to point it out, mind you) doesn't mean that the original statement lacked merit.

In my opinion, it was a fairly sad deviation from the topic, especially considering you admittedly agree that there is a difference in the application of the repeated reliving of the scenario.

/TL;DR, To use a word from earlier in the thread, sir, you are being fairly pedantic here.  And possibly shallow.
//yes.  Shallow AND pedantic.

Okay, let me try this another way... here is the assertion I took issue with:

...having victims repeat their experiences over and over and over again can be unbelievably painful and awful, but it's been proven to reduce PTSD, and is tremendously beneficial to abuse survivors, as well as survivors of many traumatic experiences.

This does not seem like it could possibly be a true statement. When, in the course of a debate, one comes across a statement that defies logic, it is common to respond with [citation needed]. Hey, maybe I'm wrong. But according to the quote, it's been proven.

When a poster makes a claim saying X has been proven, is it off-limits to ask for the proof?


With that clarification, then by all means, proceed with your request.  I'm not going to dig for the citation, myself, because I personally found discussing my experience repeatedly to be beneficial, and agreed with his assertion.
 
2014-02-06 01:48:31 AM  

m00: vicioushobbit: m00: vicioushobbit: Talking to a counselor =/= knowing that somebody is still jacking off to the shiat that traumatized you.

/the more you know...

Look I don't disagree with the conclusion -- that clearly talking to counselors does less harm than the original incident. But you can't use a statement that makes no sense because it has an obvious counter-example (within the context of the very discussion!) to get there.

It's like saying... Creationism is nonsense. I have irrefutable proof for the currently accepted scientific model -- Lord Xenu told me so.

I disagree that the statement was used incorrectly.  Just because you randomly came up with that "obvious" counter example (you are the first one in the thread to point it out, mind you) doesn't mean that the original statement lacked merit.

In my opinion, it was a fairly sad deviation from the topic, especially considering you admittedly agree that there is a difference in the application of the repeated reliving of the scenario.

/TL;DR, To use a word from earlier in the thread, sir, you are being fairly pedantic here.  And possibly shallow.
//yes.  Shallow AND pedantic.

Okay, let me try this another way... here is the assertion I took issue with:

...having victims repeat their experiences over and over and over again can be unbelievably painful and awful, but it's been proven to reduce PTSD, and is tremendously beneficial to abuse survivors, as well as survivors of many traumatic experiences.

This does not seem like it could possibly be a true statement. When, in the course of a debate, one comes across a statement that defies logic, it is common to respond with [citation needed]. Hey, maybe I'm wrong. But according to the quote, it's been proven.

When a poster makes a claim saying X has been proven, is it off-limits to ask for the proof?


I'm the one who made the assertion, and it's pretty well known. I think they're using Mantram repetition now for PTSD, but I'd have to look that up. I'm also working tonight. But asking for citations is never out of bounds. Finkelhor & Browne is who I was thinking of, and their 4 tiered model w/ PTSD focus (which is repetition to reduce trauma). Again I'd google better shiat for you but I'm inbetween work sessions tonight. >
Additionally still going off memory, I don't know if I mentioned one of the small groups that doesn't work well for, people with disassociative disorders. I'm not talking MPD (which is whole other topic, and IMHO widely misunderstood and misattributed) but the more generalized DD group, where people with it tune out when things get to a specific stress level. Repetition doesn't work well there b/c you're just making them disassociate which makes that problem worse.

It's *hugely* beneficial for most survivors though. It's the disassociative disorders are more commonly seen in kids from households where abuse was chronic and unpredictable and there's a chronic state of fear and anxiety.

/rces off, and is late
 
2014-02-06 02:03:18 AM  

FraggleStickCar: but does that mean that we absolutely cannot have a talk about the effect that pornography and violent video games can have on a person (particularly a young person with a developing brain)?


Here's the problem: we did. With actual studies and science and math and everything. But none of that satisfies the moral outrage, so we keep bringing it up.

If you've got new evidence that contradicts the previous studies please share it, and re-start the discussion. But if all you want to do is decry the way that these newfangled machines allow people to continue to behave exactly like they always have, I'm not sure you're going to get many serious takers.
 
2014-02-06 02:41:37 AM  
xboxliving.comView Full Size
 
2014-02-06 04:08:53 AM  

cookiefleck: Because you are saying that the law enforcement/therapists will somehow damage her more than the rape itself did.


Oh, I can answer this one.

Did you know that it has been shown that counselling immediately after a traumatic event makes things worse, not better?  Have someone make themselves extremely vulnerable and talk about something repeatedly in detail right after they've been traumatised and all you do is deeply embed the memory in glorious detail.

The majority of counsellors I've dealt with do nothing but make people worse.  I have had clients who have been going to counsellors for 10 years after a simple rape (as in the least bad thing that can happen to you if you're going to be raped) or a one-off drunken grope by a creepy guy.  That is wrong.  That's not treatment.

Did you know a lot of counsellors become counsellors because something bad happened to them, and they want to help "fix" other "damaged" people (also true of social workers, by the way).  They believe they are uniquely able to help because they know what the client is going through.  Do you think it's a good idea to subject vulnerable people to them?

They enable instead of treating them.  They make them sickly dependent on the counsellor, who has unintentionally managed to teach them that they are irreparably damaged and incapable of a normal life.  The counsellors have made them internalise maladaptive coping strategies that have been far more damaging to their lives than the actual trauma of the rape.  Slowly their entire identity has become about being "victim of rape" (or "survivor of rape").  The patient has become less and less able, sicker and sicker.

There are a lot of counsellors I encountered in my work who deserve a knife to the chest for what they have done to people who went to them for help.  My opinion of them is barely higher than my opinion of Alcoholics Anonymous, which I think is a load of abusive bullshiat.

/Try some real treatment, like Cognitive Behavioural Therapy with an actual psychologist
//Complaining to one person or a group of people every week for the rest of your life is no cure for anything
 
2014-02-06 04:50:59 AM  
Lady Indica: ...
Are you in NAMBLA? I'm asking seriously because they are the only people I've ever seen to put forth this EXACT argument.

not to get involved in the argument, but; where have you encountered NAMBLA-types w/ said argument?

/by all means, skimp on the details please...
 
2014-02-06 07:19:40 AM  

TwistedFark: namegoeshere: I'm feeling a bit sick at the moment thinking of all the children treated in exactly this way. YEAY on the parents, whatever their mistakes may have been in the past, for reporting this. That was absolutely the correct, and ONLY response.

I actually disagree that this is the ONLY response. I think it's entirely possible to be supportive to the daughter without sending the son to jail in some cases. I don't know if I knew the entire details around this incident and the people involved if I would feel that this particular case would be one that I wouldn't send right to the cops, but I am willing to entertain that there are outcomes that could potentially be better for everyone, including the victim, than immediately involving the legal system.

Evidently these parents thought this was the right thing to do, so I'm not going to second guess them at all. But I do think it's possible for people acting in good faith to provide better outcomes than our "one size fits all" justice system. To be very clear - I am not advocating for ignoring the situation, quite the opposite, I am advocating for dealing with it, but acknowledging that a parents duty to their children isn't necessarily satisfied by letting essentially someone else (in this case the criminal justice system) sort it out for you.

It's likely the courts would do exactly what most families would do either way. The offender is going to be removed from the house and put into some sort of care system, both children will be put into counselling and there will be some sort of supervision on family visits. The only practical difference here is that the decisions around these terms is not in control of the family any more, but the courts.

The only potential upside of the above scenario is that maybe the government will pay for the services provided to the offender. But, assuming that you're on the hook for feeding him/clothing him and getting him mental health care, you're not really better off, in fact, ...


There is no way at all to provide care for either child and have it not be a police matter. All teachers, caregivers, medical professionals, counselors, and adults working in a professional capacity with children are mandated reporters. As soon as the child sees a doctor or any type of counselor, even the one at school, it is a police matter. In fact, if she ever lets slip that it happened at all, it is a police matter. The only way for the parents to keep it out of the hands of the police is to deny the girl medical care, and any and all counseling when she is a minor child (even if she is struggling with something else years later) and to heavily coach the child to never ever tell anyone what happened. Never talk about it. Act as if it never happened. And this isn't something you can try a bit and if it doesn't work you can go a different route. If it comes out later that you knew of the abuse and did not report it and denied medical care, you are guilty of a crime. So once you start "handling it as a family matter" you are stuck with that. Even if the victim shows signs of PTSD or some other physical or mental health issue in the future. This is never in the best interest of the child.
 
2014-02-06 09:54:34 AM  
profplump

I did a bit of looking around, and there isn't a lot to work with.  There are studies showing harmful effects of porn/violence consumption, and others suggesting the effects are mostly neglible, pretty much all of them are either very limited in scope or have a very clear bias/agenda. I wish I still had access to JSTOR, Lexis Nexus, etc., because most of the stuff I'm finding on either side of the issue is pretty sketchy at best.

I can regale you all day with anecdotes about how video games desensitized me or others i know, or how watching porn at a young age was both very helpful and educational, but also to some degree warped my perceptions of human sexuality.  But that is all generally useless, and falls right in line with the anecdotal knee-jerk defensiveness I was talking about.  It'd be nice to see some more actually substantive independent and objective research done.
 
2014-02-06 10:49:34 AM  

if_i_really_have_to: cookiefleck: Because you are saying that the law enforcement/therapists will somehow damage her more than the rape itself did.

Oh, I can answer this one.

Did you know that it has been shown that counselling immediately after a traumatic event makes things worse, not better?  Have someone make themselves extremely vulnerable and talk about something repeatedly in detail right after they've been traumatised and all you do is deeply embed the memory in glorious detail.

The majority of counsellors I've dealt with do nothing but make people worse.  I have had clients who have been going to counsellors for 10 years after a simple rape (as in the least bad thing that can happen to you if you're going to be raped) or a one-off drunken grope by a creepy guy.  That is wrong.  That's not treatment.

Did you know a lot of counsellors become counsellors because something bad happened to them, and they want to help "fix" other "damaged" people (also true of social workers, by the way).  They believe they are uniquely able to help because they know what the client is going through.  Do you think it's a good idea to subject vulnerable people to them?

They enable instead of treating them.  They make them sickly dependent on the counsellor, who has unintentionally managed to teach them that they are irreparably damaged and incapable of a normal life.  The counsellors have made them internalise maladaptive coping strategies that have been far more damaging to their lives than the actual trauma of the rape.  Slowly their entire identity has become about being "victim of rape" (or "survivor of rape").  The patient has become less and less able, sicker and sicker.

There are a lot of counsellors I encountered in my work who deserve a knife to the chest for what they have done to people who went to them for help.  My opinion of them is barely higher than my opinion of Alcoholics Anonymous, which I think is a load of abusive bullshiat.

/Try some real treatment, like Cognitive Behaviou ...


The problem here doesn't seem to be the therapy itself, but the counsellors applying it.  I've had some shiat counselors in my life.  I had a university one that, at a suicidal point in my life, told me to go "deal with it myself."  Were it not for a loving professor who caught me in the hall, I very well might have. 

I had to go through four before I found one I liked in one state, and found only shiat ones in another after I moved.  Living in Oregon, now, I have a hard time even looking for a counselor because I know the gauntlet it will be.

However, that one GOOD counselor I had? He saved my life even when he wasn't there, because he taught me how to take control of myself, get confidence in myself, and realize that I couldn't control what happened to me when I was a kid.

So, my argument would be, encourage victims to get treatment, but also encourage them to change doctors when treatment isn't working.  Would you go to the same mechanic, time after time, if he/she kept farking up your car? Would you go to your hair stylist if they never cut your hair the way you wanted it?

No, you'd shop around.  It's ok to fire your counselor.

/end speech.
 
2014-02-06 10:51:18 AM  
Has nobody ever recovered from "bad touch?" Is it possible to be molested once as a kid and not have your whole life irretrievably ruined forever? Do you have to be so totally and completely broken that you'll spend the rest of your life nothing but a pathetic victim, summarily defined by one not-so-great experience?

A kid can get meningitis and recover, a kid can learn to deal with a parent or sibling getting run over by a bus, he can be raised as the only Jewish kid in a Samoan neighborhood and not go through life mentally maimed. Why does one blowjob have to be such a big deal?

It seems to be that defining a person as a Tragic Victim and subjecting them to years of counseling, pity and gossip can be worse than the actual 5 minute event. Is it possible that such a thing could happen once to somebody and have no more effect on her life trajectory than breaking a wrist when she's 8?

I've met a few people who were "experimented with" once or twice as kids who say it was not such a horrible thing, that worse things have happened that are supposed to be a "nstural part of life," that they don't walk around thinking of themselves as Child Abuse Survivors. That they grew up to get PhDs in engineering and raise healthy happy kids. Maybe they were wrong, In Denial, so horribly messed up that they had no idea how messed up they were? Maybe everybody who says "I just shrugged it off and went on with my life" should be involuntarily committed and subjected to treatment with mind-bending chemicals until they come to accept a version of reality that accords with this discourse of victimhood.

I'm certainly not advocating teaching teenage boys to get their little sisters to blow them nor am I supporting what he did in any way. It's just that all this carrying on sounds way too overblown, that at the very least it's not as helpful and supportive as it's made out to be.

200+ comments is too many to wade through so I don't know if this has already been addressed.
 
2014-02-06 11:09:10 AM  

The One True TheDavid: Has nobody ever recovered from "bad touch?" Is it possible to be molested once as a kid and not have your whole life irretrievably ruined forever? Do you have to be so totally and completely broken that you'll spend the rest of your life nothing but a pathetic victim, summarily defined by one not-so-great experience?

A kid can get meningitis and recover, a kid can learn to deal with a parent or sibling getting run over by a bus, he can be raised as the only Jewish kid in a Samoan neighborhood and not go through life mentally maimed. Why does one blowjob have to be such a big deal?

It seems to be that defining a person as a Tragic Victim and subjecting them to years of counseling, pity and gossip can be worse than the actual 5 minute event. Is it possible that such a thing could happen once to somebody and have no more effect on her life trajectory than breaking a wrist when she's 8?

I've met a few people who were "experimented with" once or twice as kids who say it was not such a horrible thing, that worse things have happened that are supposed to be a "nstural part of life," that they don't walk around thinking of themselves as Child Abuse Survivors. That they grew up to get PhDs in engineering and raise healthy happy kids. Maybe they were wrong, In Denial, so horribly messed up that they had no idea how messed up they were? Maybe everybody who says "I just shrugged it off and went on with my life" should be involuntarily committed and subjected to treatment with mind-bending chemicals until they come to accept a version of reality that accords with this discourse of victimhood.

I'm certainly not advocating teaching teenage boys to get their little sisters to blow them nor am I supporting what he did in any way. It's just that all this carrying on sounds way too overblown, that at the very least it's not as helpful and supportive as it's made out to be.

200+ comments is too many to wade through so I don't know if this has already been addressed.


There are many people who don't seem to have a weight around them when they were abused as kids.  I have several cousins (all abused by the same uncle) that didn't seem to have the same issues that I do.  I don't talk with them much about it, so I cannot compare "severity" or anything else like that, but I'm guessing it has a lot to do with the individual. 

Everybody handles experiences differently.  Some people freak out from a fender bender, some people aren't phased if their prized car is destroyed in a wreck, as long as there are no injuries.  Some people could be molested/raped, and decide that they won't let it be their defining point, and can move on from it.  Some people can't.  Some people internalize that somehow they caused what happened to them to happen, and that guilt is what causes them major problems later.  Others are lucky enough to not carry guilt from being victimized.

The important thing about getting the counselling early with a young victim is, you don't know how deep the victimization goes.  She's raped by her brother, but who started the brother's violence? Maybe talking to the sister would reveal somebody else who's maybe molested her, but she didn't report.  It gives the victim a chance to know that what happened wasn't their fault, that the fault was on the person who victimized, and gives the victim stable ground to move forward.

Or, you know, you could avoid those counseling sessions and let the kid try to "figure out" for themselves what went down.  Let the parents pretend it didn't happen, to try to save the kid the memories.  Then later, as they develop trust and boundary issues, maybe sudden violent illness around certain triggers, and begin to think themselves insane and broken, you can send them to a counselor for help.  And then hope that you can undo a lifetime of living in fear.

Because you can't know HOW the child will receive the experience, it's better to go with the therapy that can at least provide the victim with the building blocks for recovery, rather than avoiding the issue, which teaches the victim that what happend to them was shameful, and they can very easily interpret it as THEIR shame.
 
2014-02-06 11:44:08 AM  

umad: SecretAgentWoman: I would bet there are tens of thousands of 13 year old boys that have watched porn and didn't rape anyone, let alone their sister.

Yes, but the goal is to have zero 13 year old boys raping their sisters. So sorry, no porn for you. We should ban videogame systems too, just to be sure. Especially the ones that have the thing that goes up.

Who am I kidding. Farkers will never give up their electronic penis exctensions even if it means children will be raped.

/'Merica


I see what you did there.
 
2014-02-06 12:34:47 PM  
To post an antithesis to Dope Kitty,

When I was about 14, the then 6 year old male child of a family that my family was friends with spontaneously decided to tell his mother that I had done some sexual thing or another to him and made him uncomfortable.  This is not something I did (or at least not something I recall doing).  How was it handled?

My mother told me to stop whatever i was doing and come sit and talk to her, NOW (and any time she spoke in capital letters, she meant farking business).  Then she just point-blank laid out the allegations, despite how shocking they were and asked me in order:
1) When he was there, was I alone with him?
2) When i was alone with him, was the door closed?
3) Did I do what I was accused of?

I don't know what happened after that.  No police were called, but we saw a lot less of that family.  As an adult, I asked her about it, and she said that as a parent, she felt it was her responsibility to a) give me all the details, even if i wasn't ready for them.  If I was guilty, more details could scare me into confession, as though she already knew, and at 14, she already knew I wasn't completely innocent anyway, and figured I could handle it.  b) to side with me no matter what, as my parent.  c) to understand the mother of the kid would side with him no matter what.  At the time, she took what I said, compared the other Mother's story, and they apparently concluded that there was no great solution to this, but perhaps it was best to go their separate ways.

I think she did it correctly.  The parents should always side with their favorite child.
 
2014-02-06 12:38:53 PM  

Ed Grubermann: WTP 2: just castrate him. and i mean now.

And what will that do? You don't need a hard-on to sexually assault someone.


Removing the testicles pretty much removes all sex drive. You don't get horny without those hormones.
 
2014-02-06 12:53:52 PM  

The One True TheDavid: Has nobody ever recovered from "bad touch?" Is it possible to be molested once as a kid and not have your whole life irretrievably ruined forever? Do you have to be so totally and completely broken that you'll spend the rest of your life nothing but a pathetic victim, summarily defined by one not-so-great experience?

A kid can get meningitis and recover, a kid can learn to deal with a parent or sibling getting run over by a bus, he can be raised as the only Jewish kid in a Samoan neighborhood and not go through life mentally maimed. Why does one blowjob have to be such a big deal?

It seems to be that defining a person as a Tragic Victim and subjecting them to years of counseling, pity and gossip can be worse than the actual 5 minute event. Is it possible that such a thing could happen once to somebody and have no more effect on her life trajectory than breaking a wrist when she's 8?

I've met a few people who were "experimented with" once or twice as kids who say it was not such a horrible thing, that worse things have happened that are supposed to be a "nstural part of life," that they don't walk around thinking of themselves as Child Abuse Survivors. That they grew up to get PhDs in engineering and raise healthy happy kids. Maybe they were wrong, In Denial, so horribly messed up that they had no idea how messed up they were? Maybe everybody who says "I just shrugged it off and went on with my life" should be involuntarily committed and subjected to treatment with mind-bending chemicals until they come to accept a version of reality that accords with this discourse of victimhood.

I'm certainly not advocating teaching teenage boys to get their little sisters to blow them nor am I supporting what he did in any way. It's just that all this carrying on sounds way too overblown, that at the very least it's not as helpful and supportive as it's made out to be.

200+ comments is too many to wade through so I don't know if this has already been addressed.


Some people just have a victim mentality, and this applies far beyond anything sexual. I have friends who believe just about everything wrong with their life is because of this or that and not because of their own actions or inactions or just dwelling on the past. We've all been through shiat of one sort or another, some of us move on, others dwell.
 
2014-02-06 12:56:23 PM  

namegoeshere: TwistedFark: namegoeshere: I'm feeling a bit sick at the moment thinking of all the children treated in exactly this way. YEAY on the parents, whatever their mistakes may have been in the past, for reporting this. That was absolutely the correct, and ONLY response.

I actually disagree that this is the ONLY response. I think it's entirely possible to be supportive to the daughter without sending the son to jail in some cases. I don't know if I knew the entire details around this incident and the people involved if I would feel that this particular case would be one that I wouldn't send right to the cops, but I am willing to entertain that there are outcomes that could potentially be better for everyone, including the victim, than immediately involving the legal system.

Evidently these parents thought this was the right thing to do, so I'm not going to second guess them at all. But I do think it's possible for people acting in good faith to provide better outcomes than our "one size fits all" justice system. To be very clear - I am not advocating for ignoring the situation, quite the opposite, I am advocating for dealing with it, but acknowledging that a parents duty to their children isn't necessarily satisfied by letting essentially someone else (in this case the criminal justice system) sort it out for you.

It's likely the courts would do exactly what most families would do either way. The offender is going to be removed from the house and put into some sort of care system, both children will be put into counselling and there will be some sort of supervision on family visits. The only practical difference here is that the decisions around these terms is not in control of the family any more, but the courts.

The only potential upside of the above scenario is that maybe the government will pay for the services provided to the offender. But, assuming that you're on the hook for feeding him/clothing him and getting him mental health care, you're not really better off, in fact, ...

There is no way at all to provide care for either child and have it not be a police matter. All teachers, caregivers, medical professionals, counselors, and adults working in a professional capacity with children are mandated reporters. As soon as the child sees a doctor or any type of counselor, even the one at school, it is a police matter. In fact, if she ever lets slip that it happened at all, it is a police matter. The only way for the parents to keep it out of the hands of the police is to deny the girl medical care, and any and all counseling when she is a minor child (even if she is struggling with something else years later) and to heavily coach the child to never ever tell anyone what happened. Never talk about it. Act as if it never happened. And this isn't something you can try a bit and if it doesn't work you can go a different route. If it comes out later that you knew of the abuse and did not report it and denied medical care, you are guilty of a crime. So once you start "handling it as a family matter" you are stuck with that. Even if the victim shows signs of PTSD or some other physical or mental health issue in the future. This is never in the best interest of the child.


That whole mandatory reporting thing kinda bugs me actually. If someone did something to me, I'd have been less inclined to ever tell anyone if I knew they were required to betray my trust and bring in the police.
 
2014-02-06 02:43:56 PM  

dopekitty74: Profedius: I find I want more information into how this act was discovered. I think rape in the idea that he held her down tore her underwear off is less likely than a case of sexual experimentation that resulted in him having actual sex with his sister. I am guessing at some point she had wanted the play to end most likely at the point of penetration and he did not stop. I guess sometime after the event she told a parent. I am still wondering how as a parent you go from finding out your son had sex with your daughter to calling the police to have him arrested. For the wellbeing of the family wouldn't the parents try to correct the issue quietly and quickly before bringing in law enforcement? This event has been dragged out for I am guessing months with all of society expressing how horrible this was and how she was victimized by her own brother. She is going to be damaged now for life when it could have been over and recovered from more quickly. I would have handled the situation differently which I think would have had less impact on the development of both children.

this is how it was handled in my family when my sixteen year old cousin forced me to give him oral sex when I was six.  He didn't come over anymore, my parents talked to me about how he was bad and it was ok for me to be upset about it.  At the time though, I really didn't think much of it except that it was gross.  I already had peeked at my brother's skin mags that were hidden in the bathroom (he's a lot older than me) and also at some point remember peeking thru the bathroom door when my dad was peeing because i was curious about how men peed.

That being said, there's a lot of people that would say that i'm "broken"  as a result of the abuse incidents, although I tend to disagree.  Yes, i'm promiscuous, but I enjoy myself and don't feel ashamed about it.  Yes, i'm kinky, but not crazily so.  I've always figured that one could go one of two ways after childhood sexual abuse, one could be frigid or ...




Thank you for pointing out what I was trying to say that the people seeing the word rape can't seem to get into their heads. You talk to both kids about how wrong it is to have sex with your sister and then you take steps to ensure that it doesn't happen again. I played around with my 2nd cousin and my 2nd cousin in law from the time they were 11 and 10 until they were 21 and 20. We were never caught and the sex was consensual though it didn't start out as sex. It started out as curiosity and showing then moved to touching and a bit later oral. Sexual intercourse happened within the first year of this activity and then was pretty regular event any chance we got to slip away which became easier once I could drive. What started the sexual activity was the discovery of my Grandpa's adult magazines in his basement and our curiosity after/during looking though them. All three of us were aware that the adults would not approve of our activities had we been caught, but we all thought it felt good and was worth it. Currently they are both married and do not have sexual activity with each other or me anymore. To the law and adults what we did would have been considered rape and or sexual abuse even though no one was raped or abused.

Having the child in this story say that he picked his sister because she was small and didn't recall things does not indicate rape. He could be indicating that she wouldn't stop him thinking it was wrong and would think nothing of it. When I think of rape I think of the person being forced like you were and not a "Hey I found something that feels good." type of play.
 
2014-02-06 03:00:00 PM  

AbortionsForAll: vicioushobbit: AbortionsForAll:
You do realize that your entire argument against me consists of you putting words into my mouth and essentially inventing an entire set of circumstances which only exist within the confines of your imagination..?

No.  I do, however, realize, that you cannot see how the below statement of yours:

...the various social workers & law-enforcement personnel who are caring for the little girl/victim are almost certainly doing vastly more damage than the brother/rapist actually did.

is trollish.  You are literally claiming that the therapy she receives and the investigation is MORE TRAUMATIC than being raped by her older brother, a kid she very likely trusted and respected, if not idolized (like many kids do their big siblings).

That breach of trust, that violation of a child's innocence, that abuse of their body...LESS damaging than somebody asking questions about it?

Yet you claim it's worth, and provide no substantiation to WHY you believe it is worse.  You flat out refuse to provide substantiation.  You, sir/ma'am, whether you see it or not, are in fact a farking troll.

And I'm done with you.  Welcome to one of the very few people on my ignore list.

Thank you. Yes. Add me to your ignore list. If the end result is that you never reply to anything I say ever again, then I consider that a win.

Your are operating under the assumption that the 8 year old victim has an adult-level understanding of the incident (in reality, as a small child, she probably has very little understanding of what actually happened to her - fortunately for her). Her likely level of understanding of the situation being what it is, I would wager that the long line of weepy adults repeatedly telling the girl how she has been victimized and damaged is probably more traumatic for her (not to mention the sheerly massive level of attention said adults are now paying to her private areas).

I don't see what's so hard to understand about this concept. Hell, an actual m ...


I agree with you too and was trying to say the same thing in a different way. I think people have a hard time getting past the rape aspect and into the mind of the child at that age. When I was ten and a girl/woman would touch my penis all I considered was how good it felt. I later learned that it was wrong, but I disagreed with those telling me that it was wrong, because it felt good and no one was getting hurt so how could it be wrong. I wonder how messed up I would be today had I told anyone and then had to go through the process of being told and reinforced into the victim mentality.
 
2014-02-06 05:52:25 PM  

Profedius: AbortionsForAll: vicioushobbit: AbortionsForAll:
You do realize that your entire argument against me consists of you putting words into my mouth and essentially inventing an entire set of circumstances which only exist within the confines of your imagination..?

No.  I do, however, realize, that you cannot see how the below statement of yours:

...the various social workers & law-enforcement personnel who are caring for the little girl/victim are almost certainly doing vastly more damage than the brother/rapist actually did.

is trollish.  You are literally claiming that the therapy she receives and the investigation is MORE TRAUMATIC than being raped by her older brother, a kid she very likely trusted and respected, if not idolized (like many kids do their big siblings).

That breach of trust, that violation of a child's innocence, that abuse of their body...LESS damaging than somebody asking questions about it?

Yet you claim it's worth, and provide no substantiation to WHY you believe it is worse.  You flat out refuse to provide substantiation.  You, sir/ma'am, whether you see it or not, are in fact a farking troll.

And I'm done with you.  Welcome to one of the very few people on my ignore list.

Thank you. Yes. Add me to your ignore list. If the end result is that you never reply to anything I say ever again, then I consider that a win.

Your are operating under the assumption that the 8 year old victim has an adult-level understanding of the incident (in reality, as a small child, she probably has very little understanding of what actually happened to her - fortunately for her). Her likely level of understanding of the situation being what it is, I would wager that the long line of weepy adults repeatedly telling the girl how she has been victimized and damaged is probably more traumatic for her (not to mention the sheerly massive level of attention said adults are now paying to her private areas).

I don't see what's so hard to understand about this concept. ...


Thank you. That's my point exactly. It doesn't make the fact that you were molested less wrong, but the situation being "wrong" doesn't necessarily correlate with psychological damage inflicted. Most likely, if law enforcement & child protective services had gotten involved, your ultimate feelings on the matter would be complete different and you'd have been forced to go through an awfully traumatic experience (the experience of being interrogated by various adults & all of the swirling attention being paid to your genitals). I'd say such attention would have made the situation MUCH worse for you, since you personally do not feel traumatized by the actual molestation (as you didn't really understand the gravity of the situation when it was actually happening to you).

Some people just love hating pedophiles so much that they don't care to stop and think about the consequences to the child.
 
2014-02-06 06:07:01 PM  

Lady Indica: cbt is highly successful


I wish you'd give me some cbt.
 
2014-02-06 07:46:22 PM  

vicioushobbit: The problem here doesn't seem to be the therapy itself, but the counsellors applying it.


A billion times this and I would argue it's still one of the biggest problems in psychology today. There's also plenty of shiat "treatments", like 'rebirthing' too. There's also a huge lack of child psychiatrists, which means that getting a kid assessed by one in some states is literally impossible. So they have to go to a pediatrician for prescriptions who may have little to no expertise in these areas. That's going a little afar field...but it's a serious problem.

I would also say anecdotally that in my personal experience when I was studying psych and today that there are FAR more farked up 'therapists' (MFCC/LSW/etc) than good ones. Far too many are there working on their personal issues and it bleeds onto their clients. Or they get so hyperfocused in one area, that everyone is an orange. And if an apple shows up, by god they'll MAKE it an orange!

This can make it unbelievably difficult to find not only a good therapist, but one that's good for you. The best suggestion I can offer to anyone who is looking or needs one, is to go with someone who does cognitive behavioral therapy and has a good background.
 
2014-02-07 12:29:10 AM  

Lady Indica: Or they get so hyperfocused in one area, that everyone is an orange. And if an apple shows up, by god they'll MAKE it an orange!


Very very well said.
 
Displayed 22 of 222 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report