Randal Martin on the CAM/Jeriah Debacle

[Dan Z]

Your the one twisting things. Her chart says "cause" not responsibility and then you turn it around about "contributing causes" is okay to look at?... Your contradicting yourself...

I don't think I'm contradicting either myself or you Wade - just pointing out that we can and should hold people fully responsible for their actions, while at the same time recognizing that external factors (like for example the existence of alcohol, or past abuse, or institutional response) can contribute to the likelihood of a deviant act being committed.

[Ken]

Isn't there a difference between assigning "responsibility" for sexual assault on the one hand (which lies with the perpetrator, as Aurian's chart asserts), and seeking to understand "contributing causes" of sexual assault on the other? Can't we explore causes and context without undercutting responsibility or blaming victims?

What I'm thinking is that anyone who commits an act of sexual violence against another is solely responsible for their actions. There can be no environmental excuse that absolves a person of this responsibility of having willfully harmed another human being. That being said, when seeking to understand why an assailant commits an act of violence, it seems reasonable to examine the environmental and experiential factors that may contribute to the likelihood of violent acts occurring - not to excuse the wrong behavior, or shift blame, but to understand what factors are behind it, and how to treat and limit this type of violence from occurring to others.

I was briefly abused as a child, and I hold my (now deceased & forgiven) abuser fully responsible for what he did, but I also wish that those adults in contact with him would have intervened at some point in his life to limit the likelihood that he would have, or could have developed and acted upon his twisted impulses.

Your the one twisting things. Her chart says "cause" not responsibility and then you turn it around about "contributing causes" is okay to look at?... Your contradicting yourself...

Auren's chart simply distinguishes between the victim and perpetrator and makes the point that the victims are not responsible for their own assaults. But the victim and the perpetrator are not necessarily the only people or institutions involved in rape and abuse.

Organizations can and do have obligations to maintain safe environments for those in their care. Would a preschool that knowingly hired pedophiles have any culpability if the children in its care end up being sexually abused? They might not be guilty of the abuse themselves, but they would be guilty of negligence and perhaps worse. And could be considered accessories to the crime if they were responsible for putting the pedophile into unsupervised contact with children. That sort of nuance is not reflected in Auren's chart.

[Wade]

Isn't there a difference between assigning "responsibility" for sexual assault on the one hand (which lies with the perpetrator, as Aurian's chart asserts), and seeking to understand "contributing causes" of sexual assault on the other? Can't we explore causes and context without undercutting responsibility or blaming victims?

What I'm thinking is that anyone who commits an act of sexual violence against another is solely responsible for their actions. There can be no environmental excuse that absolves a person of this responsibility of having willfully harmed another human being. That being said, when seeking to understand why an assailant commits an act of violence, it seems reasonable to examine the environmental and experiential factors that may contribute to the likelihood of violent acts occurring - not to excuse the wrong behavior, or shift blame, but to understand what factors are behind it, and how to treat and limit this type of violence from occurring to others.

I was briefly abused as a child, and I hold my (now deceased & forgiven) abuser fully responsible for what he did, but I also wish that those adults in contact with him would have intervened at some point in his life to limit the likelihood that he would have, or could have developed and acted upon his twisted impulses.

Your the one twisting things. Her chart says "cause" not responsibility and then you turn it around about "contributing causes" is okay to look at?... Your contradicting yourself...

Auren's chart simply distinguishes between the victim and perpetrator and makes the point that the victims are not responsible for their own assaults. But the victim and the perpetrator are not necessarily the only people or institutions involved in rape and abuse.

Organizations can and do have obligations to maintain safe environments for those in their care. Would a preschool that knowingly hired pedophiles have any culpability if the children in its care end up being sexually abused? They might not be guilty of the abuse themselves, but they would be guilty of negligence and perhaps worse. And could be considered accessories to the crime if they were responsible for putting the pedophile into unsupervised contact with children. That sort of nuance is not reflected in Auren's chart.

Did either of you read Auriens chart???

It says, "WHAT CAUSES RAPE". And now you both say that her chart is about responsibility - but it doesn't say that! Wake up - you are really harming people!

That chart fuels a demand for justice by pointing fingers at others. The most fitting justice is death - no wonder why people want to see CAM die. The difference in pointing blame and establishing where responsibility lies may seem so small to you that you cannot recognize it but the trail it leads to are miles apart and always worse for the victim in the long run when the focus is not on responsibility.

[Ken]

Your the one twisting things. Her chart says "cause" not responsibility and then you turn it around about "contributing causes" is okay to look at?... Your contradicting yourself...

Auren's chart simply distinguishes between the victim and perpetrator and makes the point that the victims are not responsible for their own assaults. But the victim and the perpetrator are not necessarily the only people or institutions involved in rape and abuse.

Organizations can and do have obligations to maintain safe environments for those in their care. Would a preschool that knowingly hired pedophiles have any culpability if the children in its care end up being sexually abused? They might not be guilty of the abuse themselves, but they would be guilty of negligence and perhaps worse. And could be considered accessories to the crime if they were responsible for putting the pedophile into unsupervised contact with children. That sort of nuance is not reflected in Auren's chart.

Did either of you read Auriens chart???

It says, "WHAT CAUSES RAPE". And now you both say that her chart is about responsibility - but it doesn't say that! Wake up - you are really harming people!

That chart fuels a demand for justice by pointing fingers at others. The most fitting justice is death - no wonder why people want to see CAM die. The difference in pointing blame and establishing where responsibility lies may seem so small to you that you cannot recognize it but the trail it leads to are miles apart and always worse for the victim in the long run when the focus is not on responsibility.

I think you are just being pedantic and playing word games.

Strictly speaking, rapists don't "cause" rape either. They "commit" it.

The isn't some Newtonian exercise in cause and effect in a vacuum. It is a crime with a perpetrator and victim and a societal context that makes such crimes more or less likely depending on how we address it.

[Josh]

I think you are just being pedantic and playing word games.

Strictly speaking, rapists don't "cause" rape either. They "commit" it.

The isn't some Newtonian exercise in cause and effect in a vacuum. It is a crime with a perpetrator and victim and a societal context that makes such crimes more or less likely depending on how we address it.

Why is why Wade is pointing out that Aurien's chart, whilst well-intentioned, is not helpful. In the cases we are talking about involving CAM, Jeriah, Herr, and others, a lot more people were involved than the perpetrator and victim, and that's what we're here to talk about and how to fix.

[Ken]

I think you are just being pedantic and playing word games.

Strictly speaking, rapists don't "cause" rape either. They "commit" it.

The isn't some Newtonian exercise in cause and effect in a vacuum. It is a crime with a perpetrator and victim and a societal context that makes such crimes more or less likely depending on how we address it.

Why is why Wade is pointing out that Aurien's chart, whilst well-intentioned, is not helpful. In the cases we are talking about involving CAM, Jeriah, Herr, and others, a lot more people were involved than the perpetrator and victim, and that's what we're here to talk about and how to fix.

It is helpful for the purpose in which it was created, which is to deflect blame away from the victim and towards the perpetrator. Victims are indeed not to blame for the abuse that they suffer. And some groups do indeed try to shift blame to the victims, including CA groups (she shouldn't have tempted him or dressed that way...etc.).

But it is a simplification of a much more complex situation, especially when we are talking about people who use their position of authority or access provided by an organization to turn around and commit crimes. Some rapists or abusers are indeed lone wolves. But it is often the case that others share some responsibility for looking the other way or covering up.

[Neto]

I still sense that a discussion of rape is somewhat of a distraction from the intended topic, which is abuse. Not that rape isn't abusive, but the case in point here involved children, or at least minors. I'll just say one more thing in regards to rape in relation to responsibility. (Please recall that I am using the terms 'responsibility' and 'blame' in a contrastive sense.) If we look at the OT Law, we see a difference between a rape which occurred out in the country, an isolate field, as opposed to in a town or village, a populated area. The reasoning as present in the Law is that the victim is somewhat responsible if it happened in a populated place, because in that time and place there was a valid assumption that if she cried out, someone would have defended her. I DO realize that this very well may not hold true for many populated areas in our modern world, so I am not suggesting that the text be applied in our social settings. The other case was if the crime was done in an isolated area, one where there was no one to hear her cries and rescue her, then there is the suggestion that she was not at all responsible for what took place.
(Notice that there is none of this reasoning that "She should not have gone there, or been there alone", the kind of reasoning I have heard in our modern setting. As the movement in England states, a woman should be able to feel as safe in any setting as a man does, but it tends not to work that way. They also scoff at men who talk about their concern for the safety of their sister, wife, or daughter. Men ought to be concerned for the safety of every woman, even the ones they do not know, just as in the context of the actual topic here, all adults should be concerned about the safety of every child or young person.)
But what I am attempting to say (perhaps not very clearly) is that adult victims MAY bear some responsibility for what happens to them. (Again, NOT BLAME.) But not even every ADULT really has control over the settings or conditions in which they must live. Perhaps its better to talk about unwise actions or habits that place a person at greater risk, mainly things like alcohol or drug abuse.

[temporal1]

I still sense that a discussion of rape is somewhat of a distraction from the intended topic, which is abuse.
Not that rape isn't abusive, but the case in point here involved children, or at least minors.

I'll just say one more thing in regards to rape in relation to responsibility. (Please recall that I am using the terms 'responsibility' and 'blame' in a contrastive sense.) If we look at the OT Law, we see a difference between a rape which occurred out in the country, an isolate field, as opposed to in a town or village, a populated area. The reasoning as present in the Law is that the victim is somewhat responsible if it happened in a populated place, because in that time and place there was a valid assumption that if she cried out, someone would have defended her. I DO realize that this very well may not hold true for many populated areas in our modern world, so I am not suggesting that the text be applied in our social settings. The other case was if the crime was done in an isolated area, one where there was no one to hear her cries and rescue her, then there is the suggestion that she was not at all responsible for what took place.

(Notice that there is none of this reasoning that "She should not have gone there, or been there alone", the kind of reasoning I have heard in our modern setting. As the movement in England states, a woman should be able to feel as safe in any setting as a man does, but it tends not to work that way.

They also scoff at men who talk about their concern for the safety of their sister, wife, or daughter. Men ought to be concerned for the safety of every woman, even the ones they do not know, just as in the context of the actual topic here, all adults should be concerned about the safety of every child or young person.)

But what I am attempting to say (perhaps not very clearly) is that adult victims MAY bear some responsibility for what happens to them. (Again, NOT BLAME.) But not even every ADULT really has control over the settings or conditions in which they must live. Perhaps its better to talk about unwise actions or habits that place a person at greater risk, mainly things like alcohol or drug abuse.

i would add, male children and teens are vulnerable to abuse, and often moreso (if that’s possible) because males minors are often broadly TRUSTED with men in authority, moreso than females. JMast is a prime example.

our son was born in 1983.
we raised him to be as cautious (as his older sister) about potential predators, to be aware of his surroundings, etc.

this was a departure from the way we were raised, when boys were thought to be far less vulnerable to abuse and predators. boys were given much more freedom and responsibility at younger ages. girls were much more protected.

we did not allow him to just go freely into male public restrooms, shower rooms, or other places where trouble might be lurking and hidden. of course, today, females can no longer expect to have private spaces, anyway. so, there is that now added.

- - - - -

i did not think about abused young children preying on other children+babies, until i had a job helping with a family that adopted 3 siblings off the streets in SA. these children had been abused, and, when opportunities arose, they abused.
they can abuse “in a flash.” turn your back on children playing - it’s done. these children could not be trusted to be around other children, esp not younger children. sex abuse is what they experienced and knew.

they were extremely fortunate to be adopted by a couple that was willing to devote 24/7 for years to their care.
their bedroom doors had to have locks to protect them from each other. in addition to the adoptive parents, counselors and teachers were enlisted. all this, and no guarantees of outcomes.

“it takes a village” - FOR EVERY CHILD.

as i look at the hoards of children left to their own devices, i am overwhelmed and wonder how on earth they will be socialized?? and, if not, their futures, and the future societies they occupy look GRIM.

the logistics of all this is overwhelming. the price of rampant incompetence+corruption will be paid by all.

[Wade]

Auren's chart simply distinguishes between the victim and perpetrator and makes the point that the victims are not responsible for their own assaults. But the victim and the perpetrator are not necessarily the only people or institutions involved in rape and abuse.

Organizations can and do have obligations to maintain safe environments for those in their care. Would a preschool that knowingly hired pedophiles have any culpability if the children in its care end up being sexually abused? They might not be guilty of the abuse themselves, but they would be guilty of negligence and perhaps worse. And could be considered accessories to the crime if they were responsible for putting the pedophile into unsupervised contact with children. That sort of nuance is not reflected in Auren's chart.

Did either of you read Auriens chart???

It says, "WHAT CAUSES RAPE". And now you both say that her chart is about responsibility - but it doesn't say that! Wake up - you are really harming people!

That chart fuels a demand for justice by pointing fingers at others. The most fitting justice is death - no wonder why people want to see CAM die. The difference in pointing blame and establishing where responsibility lies may seem so small to you that you cannot recognize it but the trail it leads to are miles apart and always worse for the victim in the long run when the focus is not on responsibility.

I think you are just being pedantic and playing word games.

Strictly speaking, rapists don't "cause" rape either. They "commit" it.

The isn't some Newtonian exercise in cause and effect in a vacuum. It is a crime with a perpetrator and victim and a societal context that makes such crimes more or less likely depending on how we address it.

If we cannot ever get a grasp on the difference of responsibility verses cause then I don't see any opportunity to fix the problem. Every person I've observed that focuses on cause rather than responsibility has many difficulties in being able to move beyond being a victim rather than the picture of Christ being the victor even though physically beating and crucified. I just want the peace that passes all understanding to prevail and saddened by the continued misunderstanding in this that doesn't help with positive change with CAM.

[Aurien]

A few comments:


1. I shared the chart in response to Soloist's one post where his attitude towards adult sexual assault victims seemed to be rather negative. I understand it's harder to convey tone online, but the way it's written sent up red flags for me.

He said,

I was a sexual assault advocate in the Navy... I actually dealt with two cases and both times... no offense to them, they were being stupid. Going to a hotel room alone with your boyfriend on a 4 day weekend... The other one was so out there that I pitied the guy. I didn't stay with him because he ended up requesting a woman which was understandable. One remained private, the other unfortunately was reported to the quarterdeck. She would have rather it remained private...

Imagine being in a car accident where you were hit head-on by a drunk driver. You didn't make the guy drive while drunk, and you didn't make him crash into you. You were however going 15 MPH above the speed limit which contributed somewhat to the severity of the crash. Would it be helpful for the nurse or doctor to say, "I'm sorry you were in a crash, but no offense to you, you were being stupid. Driving 15 MPH above the limit..." Would it be helpful if a nurse or doctor had that attitude even if they didn't actually say those words to the patient? Attitudes can still be picked up on even when no words are said.

I think by now I've beat Soloist's post to death, resurrected it, and beat it to death again, so it's time for me to move on.


2. I didn't create the chart, but like Ken said it's helpful for putting the blame on the perpetrator of rape (or any other sexual assault) rather than on the one who was sexually assaulted. One chart can't cover every possible nuance, and that chart is no exception.


3. Thank you Dan for taking the time to say this. I tried to write out something like this but didn't have the energy to complete it.

Isn't there a difference between assigning "responsibility" for sexual assault on the one hand (which lies with the perpetrator, as Aurian's chart asserts), and seeking to understand "contributing causes" of sexual assault on the other? Can't we explore causes and context without undercutting responsibility or blaming victims?

What I'm thinking is that anyone who commits an act of sexual violence against another is solely responsible for their actions. There can be no environmental excuse that absolves a person of this responsibility of having willfully harmed another human being. That being said, when seeking to understand why an assailant commits an act of violence, it seems reasonable to examine the environmental and experiential factors that may contribute to the likelihood of violent acts occurring - not to excuse the wrong behavior, or shift blame, but to understand what factors are behind it, and how to treat and limit this type of violence from occurring to others.

I was briefly abused as a child, and I hold my (now deceased & forgiven) abuser fully responsible for what he did, but I also wish that those adults in contact with him would have intervened at some point in his life to limit the likelihood that he would have, or could have developed and acted upon his twisted impulses.