3 expanded posts ยท every known parent and child
B >ASAR stands for "alt.sexual.abuse.recovery", a newsgroup I run an B >anonymous server for. This group actually has survivors of all B >sorts of abuse, including the verbal abuse that rjc perpetrated. "Sticks and stones" etc. --- WinQwk 2.0b#1165
In article <199310270240.AA20351@panix.com>, Duncan Frissell <frissell@panix.com> wrote: : B >ASAR stands for "alt.sexual.abuse.recovery", a newsgroup I run an : B >anonymous server for. This group actually has survivors of all : B >sorts of abuse, including the verbal abuse that rjc perpetrated. : : "Sticks and stones" etc. The old saw about sticks and stones is absolutely false and typically is used (I'm not presuming this of you) as a cover for behavior that is intended to cause harm. The vast majority of abusive behavior, defined in terms of the harm it causes its victims, is done with words, not by direct physical action. Without getting into a long discussion, the thing is that emotional responses are not chosen, they are automatic. One can no more avoid responding with emotional pain, which is just as real as physical pain, to a hurtful word, than one can avoid responding with physical pain to a punch in the face. True, what will cause pain to one person will not necessarily cause pain to another. Also true, between adults there is no absolute requirement to avoid causing one another pain. Nonetheless, respect for one another implies that one avoids doing so whenever one can, within limits. The other side of this is that one should have a good reason to cause another pain, even the emotional pain caused by words. Rjc's sin is not failure of respect, though he has certainly has shown that, but the intentional causing of harm to another. He has claimed that "it was only a joke". "It was only a joke", except in rare and limited circumstances (which this is not one of), translates directly to "I knew it was going to hurt and that's why I did it". He might claim otherwise. But such a claim would only have been taken seriously if it had been accompanied by evidence that he was aware of what he did. If he'd said "It was only a joke and I'm sorry that I didn't consider that it would hurt Detweiler", that would have been one thing. But he said "It was only a joke therefore it was OK". That was only a disclaimer of responsibility and a bald assertion that he would do the same again.
T. William Wells says: > The old saw about sticks and stones is absolutely false and > typically is used (I'm not presuming this of you) as a cover for > behavior that is intended to cause harm. So the person intends harm? Words cannot cause physical damage. They can always be ignored. > The vast majority of abusive behavior, defined in terms of the harm > it causes its victims, is done with words, not by direct physical > action. Bill has spent too much time in the recovery movement, and has dealt with people who are nearly completely deranged so long that he no longer understands what is expected of normal people. > Without getting into a long discussion, the thing is that > emotional responses are not chosen, they are automatic. One can > no more avoid responding with emotional pain, which is just as > real as physical pain, to a hurtful word, than one can avoid > responding with physical pain to a punch in the face. Thats false. Everyone has the capacity to decide whether or not to pay attention to words. Force, on the other hand, provokes a physical reaction (such as bleeding, or perhaps dropping dead) that you can't help. Read Thomas Szasz's (sp?) "The Myth of Mental Illness" for a critique of modern excuses like "he couldn't help it". Also read "I'm disfunctional, you're disfunctional" to learn about the sort of cult the recovery movement has turned into. Perry