The feelings of an abused child

An attempt to express the feelings that a child goes through during an abusive upbringing. This needs some editing, I wrote it while still semi-dissociaty after a flashback while the feelings were still there so the grammar and stuff needs looking at.

They claim that they love and care for you, but that you need to be taught about the horrors and evils of the world to be made stronger. They both protect and comfort you, but also place you in situations where you feel that you are going to die you experience pain so intense that you cannot think; your head spins; our insides burn; you can no longer remember who you are or why you are here.

All you know is pain, all you feel in desperation. You consider crying out for help, but no one will listen, you can’t stop nor change what is happening. No matter that you do or say the pain will never stop. You are told the pain and suffering, the fear and horror is for your own good. Told that you need discipline, that you asked for it with your misbehaviour. Betrayal seems like too simple a word to describe the feelings of pain, loneliness and isolation.

When you try to talk about the pain you are told that you must be crazy: “nothing bad has happened to you”, “stop looking for attention”, “shut up already”. Each day you begin to feel more and more like you no longer know what is real. You stop trusting your own feelings as no one else acknowledges them so you must be over-reacting.

You learn to do everything that you are told with the upmost compliance, you forget everything that you ever wanted or hoped for. The pain is still there, lurking beneath the surface, but it is easier to pretend it’s not there, to bury the horrors that are in the deepest darkest corners of the mind.
The pain grows to an unbearable level, until your feelings start to shut down, you become numb: lonely and desperate you begin to give up on the senses that make people feel alive. You feel dead, you wish you were dead, there is no way out and there is no hope.

My Truth

I’m very passionate about mental health and abuse awareness, mainly due to my own expieriances. I am very open about my past, which I know is something that many do not like, but I do not see why I should stay silent – afterall that’s what the abusers told me to do and I can’t let them win can I?

I don’t want nor do I expect pity or sympathy. I do not deserve it, and I do not want it, what happened happened and I am only who I am today because of it. I do not want hugs and people saying they are sorry, what I want, what I fight for every day, is for OTHERS to feel safe that they will not be judged. What I want is to make it so that those who currently suffer in silence scared of what may happen if they open up know that they are not alone, and maybe make it so that they no longer have to fear judgement and blame.

I know that my work and my speaking out will not end abuse, discrimination and suffering, but if I can just let people know that they are not alone and do not have to suffer in silence and maybe if I can make a few people stop and think then I am happy with that. I cannot stop abuse, I cannot change the world, but maybe I can help to plant the seeds of change, plant that idea in to the minds of others, and then they can help that idea to grow until one day change can and does occur. Maybe one day the things which I fight will no longer exist, but I doubt that I will see that day. I can do so little, but it’s the best I can do, I just have to hope that human nature is not as bad as I fear and that these seeds if change and the glimmer of hope will take root.

I tell my story, my truth, not for pity, but for the hope that I can help to ignite change in this world. I know most will not believe this, but I know my truth and I hope that a few of you know this truth too. This is why I spend so long creating websites, writting letters, speaking in schools, raising money and trying to spread awareness. It’s an inconvenient truth I know, but it’s a truth that needs to be known, I cannot just sweep it under the carpet when I know that it could help others. So I fight and strive with the hope of helping, of making the suffering of others that little bit better that bit more bearable.  I wish that this truth was not there, that it did not need to be spread, but it is and it does. And for this I am sorry

This is my truth

False memory syndrome foundation – ulterior motive for creation?

Ralph Underwager, one of the founders of the False Memory Syndrome Foundation, gave an interview in 1993 with the Dutch paedophile magazine, Paedika, in which he was reported as saying that paedophilia could be a responsible choice and that having sex with children could be seen as ‘part of God’s will’. The other co-founders of the FMSF were Pamela and Peter Freyd, whose adult daughter made accusations of childhood sexual abuse. The American media gave them almost unquestioning support until their daughter, psychology Professor Jennifer Freyd, felt obliged to speak out publicly, to stop the damage that she felt her parents and their organisation were doing to abuse survivors.

Other early promoters of false memory syndrome in the US were Paul and Shirley Erberle. In the 1970s, when child pornography laws were less rigid, they edited a magazine called Finger in which there were explicit illustrations of children involved in sexual acts with adults, with features entitled ‘Sexpot at Five’, ‘My First Rape, She Was Only Thirteen’ and ‘Toilet Training’. Another key figure is Felicity Goodyear-Smith, author of First Do No Harm (1993). Felicity Goodyear-Smith admits to a personal as well as professional involvement in the issue. Her husband and parents-in-law were imprisoned for sexual abuse offences, having been members of the New Zealand community, CentrePoint, that encouraged sexual intimacy amongst its members, including the children. Although the adults involved were prosecuted for these acts, including public sex with children, Goodyear-Smith claims that this was simply ‘childhood sexual experimentation’ and quotes studies that claim to show that adult-child sex can be harmless.

Child and Women Abuse Studies Unit

Do we see a pattern here in the backstories and activities of the founders and of the term over all? I do

Freud and dissociative identity disorder ( DID )

The majority of patients in Josef Breuer and Sigmund Freud’s book Studies on Hysteria (Breuer & Freud, 1895/1983) were described as having been victims of sexual abuse and up until 1895 Freud considered that the majority of his patients were suffering from the aftermath of sexual abuse in childhood.

Freud then rejected this idea. There has been a great deal of speculation regarding this decision. Freud’s biographer, Ernest Jones (Jones, 1953), proposed that given many of the fathers of his patients were part of his own social circle, it would have been difficult for Freud to publicly state that his patients had been sexually abused as children.

to then explain the symptoms of his patients, in the absence of any real trauma, Freud produced a socially acceptable theory that denied the reality of childhood sexual abuse. Once the memories of sexual abuse reported by personalities were rejected by Freud as not being memories of true events, then the interpretation of the nature of these additional, or ‘alter’ personalities had to change.

Whereas others, such as Morton Prince (Prince, 1905/1978), had embraced the idea that there could be parallel rational conscious activity which could be described as “subconscious” or “co-conscious”, Freud rejected this idea and invented his unconscious (Freud, 1915/1995). From this point onward Freud referred only to an unconscious as distinct from a subconscious (Ellenberger, 1970.).

The unconscious of Freud, therefore, was not able to hold accurate memories, assume rational control of the body, or to think as would a rational adult. If the sexual abuse was not seen to be true, then the alter personalities (or the “unconscious” for Freud) must be irrational.

Despite the many great contributions made by Freud, this theory and the acceptance of his theory meant that many victims of sexual abuse were not believed and many patients with multiple personalities (or Dissociative Identity Disorder – DID) were to be misdiagnosed. For most of the twentieth-century the reality of many DID patient’s condition was also rejected as their appearance did not fit accepted theory.

Facts of rape – marital/spouse/partner rape

Did you know that marital Rape was only made a criminal act in the UK in 1991? Up until then it was considered impossible for a man to rape or sexually assault his wife. To quote:
“A husband cannot rape his wife unless the parties are seperated or the court has by injunction forbidden him to interfere with his wife or he has given an undertaking in court no to interfere with her.” (The Law Made Simple, The Chaucer Press, 1981)

Marriage is a contract based on mutual love, consideration and respect. Both partners have a right to their own body, and while consideration for each person’s sexual needs is normal, forced sexual acts are not. They aren’t an expression of love. They are a purposeful betrayal of the respect and trust which form a solid marriage.

Sexual abuse within marriage leaves the victim very confused. We all accept that when someone is attacked and sexually assualted by a stranger while out on the street, it is called rape, and that it is wrong and a crime But, often when a man rapes his wife it is not seen by either as a crime, or even described as rape.

Many women accept that once they are married they can’t deny their husband sex. They see it as a wifely duty to have sex whenever it is demanded. When they have been raped they take on the guilt because they may have said no, and they think thats a sign of a bad wife. It can make them feel very worthless and diminsh their levels of self confidence.

If no violence has taken place the man will often see it as consensual, as a joint decision. He denies it was rape. This adds to the confusion of the woman who starts to question the reality of what happened.

Rape is rape, regardless of the relationship between the rapist and the victim. It can be a total stranger; someone you recognise by sight, but have never really communicated with; someone you know superficially, a neighbour or a colleague; a friend, a boy-friend or a former boyfriend; a live-in partner, or a former partner; someone you are married to or have been married to in the past.

Rape is a very personal and intimate traumatic experience. Our experiences of and reactions to rape may differ widely, and although there are many similarities in the way that we feel about being the victim of rape, regardless of the relationship between us and the rapist, there are differences between stranger and intimate/acquaintance rape, and in this section I am trying to describe and offer an understanding of some of the specific problems regarding marital rape (or rape by an acuaintance) as opposed to stranger rape.

Facts of rape – Gang-Rape, what is it and why’s it happen

We think of rape as an individual not a group act. It is difficult to grasp its social dimention. We assume that, like sex, it takes place in private. It is difficult enough to face the idea of rape. To envisage gang rape is even harder, it is easier to ignore the distinction, to class it all as rape. Yet the historical origins of rape rest with the gang. The Latin word from which rape derives mean “to seize or carry off”. In ancient times, warring tribes abducted women, who then became the spoils of war.

It is generally believed for men who engage in gang rape to be pathological bullies, fiends or maniacs, and that gang rape is far less common that individual rape. The findings of research refute these assumptions. One of the first American researchers to analyse the characteristics of men reported to the police for rape in Philadelphia found that 43% of the 1292 men operated in pairs of gangs (Amir 1971). 55% raped in gangs and 16% in pairs. Contrary to prior research this study also revealed that 71% of these rapes were planned, rather than being the spontaneous explosion of pent up emotions. Other studies, since this, have supported this finding that gang rapes are more common than previously thought. In one study it was found that 10% of students had attempted rape in episodes involving more than one attacker (Warsaw, 1988).

Gang or pair rape, rather than being pathological, appears to be more about an extreme form of normative masculinity. It is in all-male communities such as the army, adolescent gangs, prison, college fraternities in America and competitive team ports that gang rae generally occurs. In war, gang rape takes on an added dimension and can be an integral tactic of warfare. Whether in peace or war, its function is to enhance male solidarity and domination. It appears to involve a process by which men distance themselves from everything denoting femininity. Women, homosexuals or those seen to be un-macho are the targets. The sexual orientation of many men who rape men and the victims who are raped, contrary to common belief, is heterosexual rather than homosexual (McMullen, 1990).

Humiliating and defiling women seems to enhance male cohesion is some siturations, a point made by Susan Brownmiller (1978), who also argues that male domination is strengthened by denigration and contempt for women. An Australian professor who studied gang rapes suggested that the reason that the gang defiled the female body in other appalling ways, often excretory, was in order to gain or maintain prestige within the group by over-emphasising the values of toughness and disregard for femininity other than as a sexual tool (Brownmuller, 1978)

The enhancement of male solidarity through such violence does raise the question f what constitutes and enhances male-bonding. A number of studies have indicated the mens friendships are generally less personal than womans (Rubin, 1983). Intimacy, the sharing of innermost thoughts and emotions, the main characteristic of female friendship, is not typical of male groups, where bonding is enhanced by posturing, competitiveness, toughness, jokes and risk-taking (Rotundo, 1989). Since one area of competitiveness is sexual, where to “score” is a way to impress friends, this inevitably involves exploiting women. Emphasis on “scoring” and objectifying women are forms of enhancing male power. Through rape, therefore, men can experience ppower, and avoid tenderness and intimacy, which often involve conflict for these men.

Generally men who partake in gang-rape are those who are brought up to believe that to be a man is to be hard and tough, and to keep emotional involvement at bay.

My experiance of rape and the legal system

I was first raped at the age of 16 when my then partner “sold” me to a drug dealer for drugs without my knowledge. My then partner took me down a street and then told me to stay there while he went to do something, next thing I knew I had a knife at my throat, and the rest is history.

After this event my partner started to rape and physically abuse me.

The first time I went to the police was when I was 17. After conversations that seems to last forever I was told that a conviction would be unlikely, and so it was “no-crimed”

When i was 19 I ran away from him. Left the city, and even the country. And I tried reporting him again, this time they told me that there would be no point in furthering anything as I was so far away from him anyway. But surely my moving away shouldn’t make what he did no longer matter?

Not long after this he found me and hurt me once more. I rung the police as soon as he left only to be accused of lying.

When I was 21 I saw him for the last time, he tried things this time too but I got away. After this he started to harass me with constant phonecalls and emails, even changing my number didn’t seem to get rid of him. So I went to the police, this time they finally took my seriously. I gave statements, I had a medical and I was told that they would be in touch again soon. Next I heard from them was them asking for permission to see MY medical records, it was at this point that they began to treat me as if I was the one on trial. I asked why they needed them and they started talking about my credibility and saying that they also needed to know about my sexual past to establish my reputation. I was the VICTIM not the RAPIST and yet they were acting as if I was the one who had to prove my innocence.

It was not long after this that I was informed that they would only be taking one of my abusers to court as they could not establish the identity o one and the other would be unlikely to be convicted due to his credibility and reputation. Apparently the one who they were willing to prosecute they did so solely on the basis that he was a drug addict and so “what people expect to see in a rapist”!!!

This few weeks where awful… all the waiting, the personal questioning, the building up followed by the crashing down. I could have coped with it (just), but in the end it was all for nothing as he, as a last act of spite, took an overdose killing himself before the legal proceedings could happen.

Why did he kill himself? Who knows… for ages afterwards people told me I killed him, that my reporting of the events was too much for him to handle. But you can’t make someone kill theirselves, he decided to take those drugs, he decided to mess about with drugs to start with, and HE no one else decided to beat and rape me repeatedly for 3 years and then to harass and almost stalk me for 2 more.

The above is my main experience with the legal system, and is one of the reasons that I now spend so much time trying to help others through the legal maze and web of lies that lay within it. In my opinion rape is a crime, and a crime is a crime, they should all be treated the same way. I mean did you know that in cases of rape the accused does not even have to take the stand? And that half the time the victim is not allowed to even speak with the prosecution prior to the trial? Can you think of a single other crime where that i the case?

For more information:

The social function of rape myths

Women, rape and the legal system

When rape statments are withdrawn

The “rape controversy”

Ritual abuse. What is it? (potentially triggering)

Many people with DID suffered some form of ritual abuse either in a cult or in some other organisation during childhood. As such I thought it might be a topic I should touch upon in this blog…

A cult is a group of people who share an obsessive devotion to a person or idea. Some cults use violent tactics to recruit, indoctrinate, and keep members. Ritual abuse is defined as the emotionally, physically, and sexually abusive acts preformed by violent cults, many of these cults do not openly express their beliefs and practices, often living separately from the general public, isolating and alienating their members from outside influences.
Some victims of ritual abuse are children abused outside of the home by non-family members, often in public settings such as day care centres and Sunday schools. Other victims are children and teenagers who are forced by their parents, or other family members, to witness and participate in violent rituals. Adult ritual abuse victims often include these grown children who were forced from childhood to be members of the group. Other adult and teenage victims are people who unwittingly joined and organisation or social group that slowly manipulated and blackmailed them into becoming permanent members of the group. All cases of ritual abuse, no matter what age of the victim, involve intense physical and emotional trauma.
Violent cults may sacrifice humans and animals as part of religious rituals. They use torture to silence victims and other unwilling participants. Ritual abuse victims say that they are degraded and humiliated and are often forced to torture, kill, and sexually violate animals or other helpless victims. The purpose of the ritual abuse is usually indoctrination. The cults intend to destroy these victims free will by understanding their sense of safety in the world and by forcing them to hurt others.
In recent years a number of people have been convicted on sexual abuse charges in cases where the victims had reported elements of ritual abuse. These survivors (mainly children) described being raped by groups of adults who were wearing costumes or masks and said that they were forced to witness religious-type rituals in which animals and humans were tortured or killed. In one case, in 1989, the defence introduced in court photographs of the children being abused by the defendants. In another case, the police found tunnels etched with crosses and pentagrams along with stone alters and candles in a cemetery where abuse had been reported. The defendants in this case pleaded guilty to charges of incest, child cruelty, and indecent assault.
There are many myths concerning the parents and children who report ritual abuse. Some people suggest that the whole idea of ritual abuse is nothing more than “mass hysteria”. They say that the parents of these children who report ritual abuse are often just on a “witch hunt”. These sceptics claim that the parents fear Satanists and used their knowledge of the Black Mass (a historically well-known sexualised ritual in which animals and humans are sacrificed) to brainwash their children into saying that they have been ritually abused by Satanists.

The practice of ritual abuse is a difficult topic for many to confront or even comprehend. The children are tortured and brainwashed in order to assure compliance and loyalty to the group. The memories of ritual abuse survivors are often so graphic and perverse that some people question whether any of the stories could be true. Yet ritual abuse survivors experience overwhelming pain and trauma related symptoms as they remember the abuse: flashbacks; body memories; dissociation; anxiety; fear; etc. all of which are also seen in torture victims from wartime incidents, prisoners of war and war crimes.

Ritual abuse is a real, systematic and brutal practice happening today

“thinking errors” caused by abuse/rape/trauma

1.Hindsight Bias.

• When you believe the you could have known what was going to happen before it was possible to know it.
• Believing that you overlooked certain “signs”; such as a thought, feeling, dream, intuition, etc.
• Sometimes people view prior “signs” as omens as it can give an illusion of control over the event
• Some people will subconsciously alter their memories of an event to include these “omens” as it can be less painful to blame oneself for missing these “signs” than to feel powerless.

2.Confusing the possibility that you could have prevented the event with the belief that you caused it.

• Often hindsight bias leads to the mistaken belief that you “could somehow have prevented” the event, and therefore you “actually caused it”.

3.Failing to consider or accet this biological truth:

• Certain scientifically proven, involuntary, emotional and biological reactions to trauma or extreme stress are so powerful that they cannot be controlled by personal determination nor willpower.
• Extreme stress can result in biologically based reactions such as dissociation or adrenaline surges which can impair mental abilities.
• In traumatic or stressful situations time is often limited this combined with the effects of shock and confusion results in a lack of the luxury of being able to weigh up options or even to fully gather the facts of the situation.
• Incases of sexual abuse or rape it is often common for the victim to become aroused. This is a biological and involuntary reaction and does not in anyway mean that the even was enjoyed, deserved or make the person a “slut”, “whore” or anything else other than human.

4.Evaluating what you did based on information that you discovered after the event.

• It is not fair to judge yourself about the decisions you made during a devastating and stressful event by considering options that you thought of later, after you have had time to process what happened, or after discussing it with another. You can only weigh the merits of what you did against the alternatives that you thought of at the time, not against those you considered only with hindsight.

5.Considering only the possible positive consequences of an alternative action.

• Do you feel guilty or ashamed due to feeling as if you should have reacted differently? Do you only look at the positive results of the path that you did not choose? Are you minimising that paths potential fornegative consequences?

6.Emotional reasoning.

• Emotional reasoning involves judging the merits of an action or idea based solelyon your emotional reaction to it. Often this emerges as the thining of t”feelings being facts”, when in reality just because you feel a certainway does not mean that you are it. For example: “I feel guilty,  therefore I must be guilty”, however this is flawed reasoning as to verify that actions are guiltworthy more than just feeling guilty is required.

7.All-or-Nothing thinking.

• This is basically seeing the world in black/white terms… so all bad, all good, etc.
• Lifeis full of ambiguities and complex situations;  however, when someonehas experienced a life shattering event their entire concept of theworld c ould be changed.  The entire world can become “dangerous”, “scary”, etc. All men could become “bad”. But in reality the word has not become any more dangerous, it is the same as it has always been; only your perception has changed.

8.Exaggerating or minimising the meaning of an event.

• The tendency either to exaggerate or minimise the meaning of a negative event is similar to all-or-nothing thinking. However, both of these paths of thinks can be damaging. It is erroneous to consider that the event was “nothing”, that you should just “get over it” or that it will not effect your life, but it is also wrong to consider it a defining moment or a core to your identity.
• This event effected you, that makes it important, however, you are worth more than this experience and are not defined by it.

“the trauma myth” – part 2

(part one be seen here)

The amazons book description states:

“Few would argue that the experience of sexual abuse is deeply traumatic for a child. But in this explosive new book, psychologist Susan Clancy reports on years of research and contends that it is not the abuse itself that causes trauma—but rather the narrative that is later imposed on the abuse experience. Clancy demonstrates that the most common feeling victims report is not fear or panic, but confusion. Because children don’t understand sexual encounters in the same ways that adults do, they normally accommodate their perpetrators— something they feel intensely ashamed about as adults. The professional assumptions about the nature of childhood trauma can harm victims by reinforcing these feelings. Survivors are thus victimized not only by their abusers but also by the industry dedicated to helping them. Path-breaking and controversial, The Trauma Myth empowers survivors to tell their own stories, and radically reshapes our understanding of abuse and its aftermath.”

The problem with this “theory” is that it confuses a lack of immediate response of a victim with a lack of harm or trauma. When trauma is defined only as stereotypical upset that leads many people to believe there was no trauma.

Some of those who sexually abuse children may enjoy terrorising them but others enjoy misusing the trust of a child, or grooming them. If complying resulted in the transformation of a parent’s persistent verbal abuse into caring words the child craves, the abuser will have trained the child to have a positive association with the harm. This is additional harm, not a reduction of harm.
This view also leads to bystanders deciding not to intercede because the child doesn’t seem to have stereotypical trauma and isn’t obviously afraid of the abuser.

What the research Clancy examines should teach those who want to help children is that we all need to understand that responses meant to help victims and survivors of sexual abuse need to be sensitive to this contrast between harm/trauma and upset.
The way people who are trying to help directly impact a child’s life can have that child preferring the harm they don’t understand to a frightening unknown. A child who has been harmed by those who supposedly care the most about their well-being may have difficulty believing that others won’t be as bad or worse. This does not mean that the sexual abuse they experienced was not in itself harmful.

Unfortunately, many people will assume that victims of sexual abuse were fully willing participants if they are more afraid of the unknown than they are of sexual abuse and cling to a sexual abuser.

Our society as a whole has serious problems in viewing any sexual abuse or rape victim who accommodates a sexual abuser as a real victim. Too many people confuse accommodation with freely given consent. Too many people have trouble viewing those who didn’t accommodate sex criminals as being real victims. This is a bit like how our society seems to have a level of disbelief surrounding domestic abuse on the basis of “if they were being hurt then why don’t they leave?”

Unfortunately it is part of the character of an abuser to not only convince the world that they are not doing anything but also to convince the victim that they deserve it, the world will blame them, the alternative is worse, that they really do love and care for them, and other such lies to manipulate the victim. This can sort of be compared to stockholm syndrome – another idea which society has issues with.

I think the best way to think of all this is that not everyone will react the same to a situration, not everyone shows the effects of trauma in the same way, and some people will actually go out of their way to hide the effects that events have had on them. But I refuse to believe for one second that this theory of child sexual abuse holds any weight, I also think that this theory is actually damaging to society; creating an atmosphere and basis for sexual predators and paedophiles to be able to get away with and even justify their crimes.