Spiritual trauma: did you have any?

[_beastie]

You never responded to me as far as explaining how a victim of abuse "growing a spine" and "confronting the abuser" factor into the cycle of abuse. If you did, I have missed it and would appreciate you pointing me to that response. Because, Charity, those are the comments you made for which you are being taken to task.

[_harmony]

I'm reminded of a scene in late seventies film called Kentucky Fried Movie, in which a Evel Knievel type Daredevil prepares himself for his ultimate stunt (the whole scene was a send up of an early seventies show hosted by Chuck Conners, the title of which escapes me at the moment). He puts on his helmet, tightens his straps...and walks over to a group of black males playing dice in an abandoned industrial section of what is obviously an inner city area. Positioning himself amongst the black men, he steadies himself, and then yells "Niggers!" as loud as he can, and runs away.

What do you think happens? Yes. the black men yell "Get 'em" and give chase. The moral of the story? If they catch the guy and beat the living crap out of him, well, they should all go to jail. But would not someone who actually did something along these lines receive little sympathy or shoulders to cry on? Now, by definition, Harmony must here say that a white male behaving in such a manner can never provoke assault and battery by a group of black males. Fault and the interpersonal dynamics of the situation are not the same thing, and by any definition, a woman, a man, anyone, can provoke rage and physical abuse. Fault lies with the one who acts upon his rage, or allows his rage to fester uncontrolled, but there is also incitement. We don't allow practical jokers to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater or run through the streets yelling "Kill the Jew Apes and Pigs" because of its potential to create conditions in which some people will act when otherwise they would have not. Fault here legally lies both with those who acted and with the one who incited the action.

That's not going to be the case in domestic violence cases because domestic violence does not happen in public, and because it can never be proven in court who said what to whom or if anyone did. The woman's black eye will be enough to send hubby to jail. Regardless, the imposition of ideology on couneling psychoilgy only muddies already murky and troubled waters.

Loran, you're so far out in left field, you've left the stadium. Domestic violence has nothing to do with your scenario, because the power structure isn't at all the same. If you can't discuss what the subject is, stay the hell out of the conversation. You're embarrassing yourself and every other member of the church with your untrained howling.

The black eye alone would probably not send the guy to jail. However, the recurring bruises, broken bones, repeated visits to the emergency room, and cigarette burns on breast and thigh definitely would. Domestic violence, especially physical abuse, is rarely a one-shot deal. It is a pattern of recurring abuse that generally escalates with each ensuing episode. Rarely are the authorities (societal or priesthood) or extended family called for the first episode. The woman will likely try to hide her bruises, to hide her shame, because it is shameful for her to admit that her husband, the man she covenanted with across the altar in the temple, would be so debased as to abuse her. Adding in the additional factor of church/priesthood authority creates an even bigger problem than garden variety domestic violence. On top of that, she's been abused by a priesthood holder, and she believes that no one will believe her. Only after repeated episodes, usually escalating to where she's afraid for her life and/or her children's lives, does she call for help, from police, bishop, or extended family. And then it's usually a long ordeal to get back to anything remotely resembling normal life.

Your lack of training is evident. Sit down and shut up; take notes, listen to those who've been abused by supposed men of God; learn something. Nevermind, I doubt you are capable.

[_Coggins7]

Since Coggins cannot "hear" anything we say, it would be helpful if you clarified the situation for him, Charity. Do not let him insist that a victim of abuse has "triggered" the abuse in the same way that a biker shouting "nigger" triggered his beating.

It would probably be a good idea to actually read my posts before responding to them.

[_Coggins7]

The black eye alone would probably not send the guy to jail. However, the recurring bruises, broken bones, repeated visits to the emergency room, and cigarette burns on breast and thigh definitely would. Domestic violence, especially physical abuse, is rarely a one-shot deal. It is a pattern of recurring abuse that generally escalates with each ensuing episode. Rarely are the authorities (societal or priesthood) or extended family called for the first episode. The woman will likely try to hide her bruises, to hide her shame, because it is shameful for her to admit that her husband, the man she covenanted with across the altar in the temple, would be so debased as to abuse her. Adding in the additional factor of church/priesthood authority creates an even bigger problem than garden variety domestic violence. On top of that, she's been abused by a priesthood holder, and she believes that no one will believe her. Only after repeated episodes, usually escalating to where she's afraid for her life and/or her children's lives, does she call for help, from police, bishop, or extended family. And then it's usually a long ordeal to get back to anything remotely resembling normal life.

Where is the empirical data documenting all of these claims regarding the beliefs/attitudes of the typical LDS domestic abuse victim?

[_beastie]

It would probably be a good idea to actually read my posts before responding to them.

Of course I read your posts. I'll leave it to those following the thread to determine if my comments were wildly unrelated to your comments on this thread.

Alert readers may be paying attention to the fact that this conversation was about victims of abuse, and the disagreement, in particular, was in regards to whether or not victims of abuse can deliberately engage in behavior to trigger a particular episode of abuse.

Whether or not you were alert enough to pay attention to that fact is another issue.

[_truth dancer]

Charity....

Google sources don't compare to college courses and workshops on the subject.

Since it is obvious you know absolutely NOTHING about abuse, have never read a book on the topic, attended a conference, or counseled anyone who has been abused, I hoped you would at the very least take a gander at a website. I still hope you will avail yourself of at least an article or two.

TD, you are part of the problem in dealing with abuse. The misinformation out there is almost overwhelming. You can't treat the problem without knowing the situation.

Spoken by someone who has never even picked up a book on abuse. Charity, why not educate yourself before you go rambling on with your nonsense. You look foolish.

You deny that the woman ever does anything to provoke a battering incident. What does that do to the woman who has? She takes from your position that she is a terrible person because no one (except her) every just gives up and does the best she can to end the tension. So she doesn't open up to you and her feelings of self worth get even more damaged as she takes from your response that only a bad woman would engage in such behavior.. Good going there, counselor!

You live in another world Charity. I have no idea where you come up with such nonsense. I seriously don't. Why in the world do you think a counselor who works with women and men who are abused engage in this sort of nonsense. I'm really asking you where you come up with this idea? I know it never came out of a book or from an expert. All I can think of is that you had to make it up, like you do so many of your odd ideas.

This is the problem with the "it's not your fault" "let me pat you on the head and pity you" school of therapy. When the woman comes to know that this is part of the cycle, that it is a natural reaction to extreme stress, then this understanding helps her to get out of the situation, and it improves her feelings of self-worth.

Would you stop with the "let me pat you on the head and pity you". Or at least please give us some idea where you come up with this nonsense. I have never come across such an approach in any book, class, conference, nor have I ever heard any therapist or expert suggest such an idea. Why do you keep suggesting this is how some therapists approach abuse counseling? I'm seriously asking you Charity. Who do you think does this and why do you think this is some sort of technique? Do you have any sources that claim this is a healthy approach? If not please stop with this ridiculous nonsense.

If you new one thing about abuse counseling you would know that it is based on empowerment.... You are so totally off base and out of touch with reality and this topic, that I could not even begin to help you come to some sort of understanding.

I HIGHLY suggest you find a book or two to at least get some minimal understanding of this topic before you start rambling on.

And Charity, you claim to have taught psych.. You try to pretend that you know about what you are talking. I'm begging you to not ever try to help a survivor of abuse. If anyone ever comes to you for help, please send them to someone who knows how to deal with the situation, and can truly help.

I shudder to think of the damage you would cause in the lives of those who are needing help.

~dancer~

[_Coggins7]

Thanks for sharing. And now back to female survivors of codependent dependents of dependent survivors of the children of adult survivors of codependency and the dependents who love them.

On the next Oprah...

[_Coggins7]

Oh, I'm sorry. To integrate this fully into pop psychology culture, this would be better as LGBT female survivors of codependent dependents of dependent survivors of the children of adult survivors of codependency and the dependents who love them

There, that's more Oprahically correct.

[_Yoda]

Thanks for sharing. And now back to female survivors of codependent dependents of dependent survivors of the children of adult survivors of codependency and the dependents who love them.

On the next Oprah...

Coggins...there are times when it's appropriate to be a smartass, and times when it's better to shut the hell up. In this case, I would strongly suggest the latter.

[_Coggins7]

Coggins...there are times when it's appropriate to be a smartass, and times when it's better to shut the hell up. In this case, I would strongly suggest the latter.

That's funny, I wouldn't suggest anything of the kind.