this topic is actually quite close to me for reasons i cannot talk about completely openly. however, as a mother i completely understand bitchiekittie's fears. my two daughters are teenagers.
but, that said, i also know that when i act primarily on the basis of fear, i make bad decisions at worst and at best do things that may offer a kind of ritualistic reassurance--like putting quadruple locks on a door in a house with paper thin walls...--things which, in the end don't really serve to make the situation move forward in a useful way, and the energy for which might very well be more productively spent elsewhere.
so where are we? some people abuse children opportunistically. others are paedophiles. some people do engage in abusive behavior, in moments arising from peculiar circumstances that are unlikely to arise again. should all these folks be treated the same by the law? how do we know which is which?
in speaking to Ganesh's point, i'm reminded of the chilling language of the Alabama supreme Court's recent decision in a custody case involving a lesbian parent, as quoted in a statement by The Rev. Troy D. Perry, founder of the MCC--
quote:
FEBRUARY 22, 2002
Justice Moore, in his ruling this past week in a custody case involving a
lesbian parent, called for the confinement and execution of homosexuals, ....
In the court's decision, Justice Moore wrote, "The State carries the power of
the sword, that is, the power to prohibit conduct with physical penalties,
such as confinement and even execution. It must use that power to prevent the
subversion of children toward this lifestyle, to not encourage criminal
lifestyle." The official court opinion also described homosexuality as
"abhorrent, immoral, detestable...a violation of nature's God upon which this
Nation was founded...and...an inherent evil."
this is an "extreme" position, obviously, and is not the position that bk is taking certainly, but i post it here to support Ganesh's uneasiness about the ways that "sexual abuse" can be defined by those in power ...
so, taking this from another perspective: i have known several women who were sexually abused as children by men who the family trusted. I can think of four specific cases right now: each case was handled differently, none was handled in a way that left no scars. three of these four were able to take much the same view as Runce seems to take of his father, in the end.
One after much therapy became perhaps the most amazingly powerful good person i know. she has made peace with her former abuser, and her family's ineptitude. One after no therapy at all--who has been one of my dearest friends for a very long time--has come to a kind of peace about her experience, although I know that during adolescence suicide was, in her words, "always an option."
a third has had a little therapy but--mainly--has a very stable home where the message that she is valued as a person, that she will be protected from others while she's a minor, and, most importantly, that she has the right to be clear and firm about her own sexuality with everyone--she has, it would seem truly overridden whatever may have happened in the past. of course one can't be 100% sure about these things, but in this case i feel pretty confident that her life has not been irretrievably broken by the event that seems to have occured in her extreme youth.
finally, however, one dear woman i know has been pretty much broken by her life experiences, and my heart sickens at the event that may be at the core of her brokeness. yet, it is still very hard to clearly point a finger of blame in her case, because her situation was/is complex, she is complex, and the decisions made by people around her after the fact were made in good faith although in the end they were often probably not the "right" ones.
hindsight is a curse, in some ways, in some situations.
I don't want to minimize the trauma of sexual abuse. I have seen its effects up close. But each case I have known has been so complex, that I don't know that the law can ever offer a one-size-fits-all solution.
alas. |
