Controlling limits of intimacy in courtship

[Suzie]

I would like to post the following quote by Elder Holland from a devotional address he gave when he was president at BYU back in 1988. I will post both, an audio with the exact words he spoke during that address and then an article that is found at one of the BYU web sites with some of the changes they made to his words.

No, the changes are not really what I would like to discuss because they are really quite insignificant, just a change of a few words in order not to sound too "strong" but I would like to know your thoughts about the following. I will quote part of it but please feel free to read or hear the whole talk. Thanks.

"I’ve heard all my life that it is the young woman who has to assume the responsibility for controlling the limits of intimacy in courtship because a young man cannot. Seldom have I heard any point made on this subject that makes me want to throw up more than that.

What kind of man is he, what priesthood or power or strength or self-control does this man have that lets him develop in society, grow to the age of mature accountability, perhaps even pursue a university education and prepare to affect the future of colleagues and kingdoms and the course of this world, but yet does not have the mental capacity or the moral will to say, "I will not do that thing".

No, this sorry drugstore psychology would have him say, "I just can't help myself. My glands have complete control over my entire life, my mind, my will, my very future."

To say that a young woman in such a relationship has to bear her responsibility and that of his too is the most discriminatory doctrine I have ever heard.

In most instances, if there is sexual transgression,I lay the burden squarely on the shoulders of the young man, for our purpose probably a priesthood bearer, and that's where I believe God intended responsibility to be. In saying that, I do not excuse young women who exercise no restraint and have not the character or conviction to demand intimacy only in its rightful role. I have had enough experience in Church callings to know that women as well as men can be predatory. But I refuse to buy some young man's feigned innocence who wants to sin and call it psychology.

Indeed, most tragically, it is the young woman who is most often the victim, it is the young woman who most often suffers the greater pain, it is the young woman who most often feels used and abused and terribly unclean. And for that imposed uncleanliness a man will pay, as surely as the sun sets and rivers run to the sea".

Audio:

Text with changes:

http://emp.byui.edu/marrottr/HollndSoulsSymbSacrs.pdf

Edited: Correction made (date).

Edited March 2, 2014 by Suzie

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

I have read this talk before and I love it. I'm glad you brought it up for discussion.

"I’ve heard all my life that it is the young woman who has to assume the responsibility for controlling the limits of intimacy in courtship because a young man cannot. Seldom have I heard any point made on this subject that makes me want to throw up more than that. . . No, this sorry drugstore psychology would have him say, "I just can't help myself. My glands have complete control over my entire life, my mind, my will, my very future.""

This is wonderful. I was so grateful to read this the first time because growing up I DID get the message that it was the young woman's responsibility, and it was wonderful to hear-from a church leader-that that was not the case.

I have to say though, I'm surprised that he called this "drugstore psychology" because it seems to refer to the general culture. I got this message from the general culture sure, but I also got it from within the church from lessons about the law of chastity and modesty.

"Indeed, most tragically, it is the young woman who is most often the victim, it is the young woman who most often suffers the greater pain, it is the young woman who most often feels used and abused and terribly unclean. And for that imposed uncleanliness a man will pay, as surely as the sun sets and rivers run to the sea""

I love this part because it fit in with what i teach my children about the Law of Chastity. I tell them the Lord has given us commandments because he wants us to be happy, not to curtail our fun. This quote illustrates how, particularly for young women, premarital sex does not lead to happiness--besides the emotional pain, there is the possibility of pregnancy and STDs...all things that make us unhappy.

I am fascinated by the last line too. (Forgive me if this seems like a tangent . . .) This last line reminds us that immorality is a serious sin. We talk about that all the time in the church. I don't disagree with that as it is often a major source of unhappiness. But what confuses me is what feels like a double standard when it comes to sexual abuse. I know that the church condemns abuse, as it should, but that is not what I am referring to.

When I was really hurting and looking for answers as I processed my childhood sexual abuse, I searched the Ensign. What I found was several articles some from survivors (always "name with-held") that all emphasized heavily forgiveness.

That strong message of forgiveness made me feel worse because it confirmed the shame that I felt. I believed that if I were a better person I would not still be so angry (all the articles I found on anger said how bad it is . . .) so I spiraled farther down in my pain.

I really started to wonder if Heavenly Father really cared about what happened to me, or did he just want me to forget about it and move on as everyone told me? Some of you may think that is a huge leap, but I was in great emotional pain--emotions and logic often conflict. Because the person that abused me was my step-father, the concept of a loving father is hard for me to grasp. Which reminds me of another question--we talk so much, and rightly so, about how important it is to have a mother in the home, because little children need that loving guidance (and I agree with that), but then we just dismiss the damage that childhood abuse causes by saying "forgive and let go," as if it were no big deal.

I nearly left the church and became an atheist it was so bad. But fortunately, before my repressed memories started returning I had had a wonderful relationship with the Savior, so I clung to what I could remember of that. And I started looking in other churches for some answers. I found a pastor of a Presbyterian church that said that reminded me that Paul taught, "Be angry but do not sin". He gave a whole sermon explaining that anger is not the problem, in fact sometimes anger can be needed, but it is how we respond to our anger that can be problematic.

I found a Catholic, Fr. Thomas Keating, that taught me about Centering Prayer, which is a form of meditation. And said, "Repent means change the direction you are looking for happiness."

I also starting meeting with my Bishop and something he said inspired me to study the Savior's life to find the answers I sought for.

In the end, I am doing better (still a long road ahead) and I am staying in the church because of Priesthood, I love the Priesthood, and the Plan of Salvation (the three degrees of glory make so much more sense to me than heaven and hell).

And finally because, I did find comfort in some talks (that were not specifically about abuse) by Elder Holland and Pres. Uctdorf, and one by Elder Bednar.

Back to your quote....after working much therapy and scripture study, I came to believe that Elder Holland's comment:

". . .it is the young woman who most often feels used and abused and terribly unclean. And for that imposed uncleanliness a man will pay, as surely as the sun sets and rivers run to the sea"

....applied to my situation as well. I still avoid Ensign talks about abuse. I still find church painful more often than not, but I keep reminding myself of the reasons I stay, and when I hear talks like Elder Holland's Broken Vessel from the last conference. It strengthens my resolve.

Sorry if that seems like a digression--but those are all the things this quote brings up for me. :)

[pam]

In a question and answer on Ask Gramps today, this same quote and talk was used in a response to a question asked.

http://askgramps.org/20536/take-elder-callisters-talk-march-ensign

Not to get into another debate regarding the talk but to show how we once taught the principal of modesty may not have been the best way. It supports Elder Holland's thoughts on this.

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

Pam, I loved that--really truly, shared it on FB, loved it. Thanks so much for sharing.

I have read several interesting blog posts about this topic, that this one resonated with me the most.

[pam]

Pam, I loved that--really truly, shared it on FB, loved it. Thanks so much for sharing.

I have read several interesting blog posts about this topic, that this one resonated with me the most.

Not that I didn't have anything to do with that article being posted to Ask Gramps. :)

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

I think I am missing something here. :)

Thanks to YOU also for whatever participation you had in it. It is really helpful. I plan to share it with my teenagers. (That's the highest praise I can give it. )

[estradling75]

Elder Holland rocks as always. In the church it seem we do a good job about teaching accountably for our actions. However it seems that we have a harder time in teaching about how accountable we are for our influences. I realize that this is sensitive for many so I am going to try to use a more neutral example.

God held Adam and Eve accountable for eating the forbidden fruit, because that was the action they took. Satan was also there he also made choices and he was held accountable for those choices. He choose to use his influence to tempt Adam and Eve to make a poor choice. God didn't accept the 'Devil made me Do it' excuse from Adam and Eve, but neither did he accept Satan's 'I didn't do anything' or 'I did what everyone else was doing.'

Now we influence people in all sorts of way, many in ways we don't have any intention of doing so. In many cases we need to be taught what kind of influences we can have on others so we can make better choices on how we choose to use that influence. It seems we do a poor job in teaching the difference between influence and control.

[beefche]

I remember sitting in the audience when Pres Holland gave this talk. It was POWERFUL. I remember how silent it was during the talk and considering there were probably 20,000 students in the audience that is significant.

This is my all time favorite talk. I think it is the best talk on sex and WHY we LDS should be chaste before and after marriage. Love this talk.

[pam]

I remember sitting in the audience when Pres Holland gave this talk. It was POWERFUL. I remember how silent it was during the talk and considering there were probably 20,000 students in the audience that is significant.

This is my all time favorite talk. I think it is the best talk on sex and WHY we LDS should be chaste before and after marriage. Love this talk.

I don't think I had ever heard this talk until the last day or so. You're right. It's an extremely powerful talk.

[Just_A_Guy]

LP, if I may ask: were the Ensign articles you found disconcerting, suggesting that victims need to OBTAIN forgiveness from God? Or were they suggesting that victims need to GIVE forgiveness to the perpetrator? I can see how either would seem troubling, but would like to understand your specific perspective a bit more.

[Quin]

I love what Kimberly had to say in AskGramps

Consider a 12 year old girl who has many trusted associations with men in her life. All too often, one of these men, acting on pure, wanton evil violates that trust and abuses her, sometimes for years. A culture that would even allow for her to ask the question, “what did I do to bring this on?” is at best, dysfunctional and at worst, evil. We must not contribute to the notion that the perpetrator is the victim and vice versa, yet that is the result of our current modest lesson delivery and content.

Q

[Suzie]

LP, if I may ask: were the Ensign articles you found disconcerting, suggesting that victims need to OBTAIN forgiveness from God? Or were they suggesting that victims need to GIVE forgiveness to the perpetrator? I can see how either would seem troubling, but would like to understand your specific perspective a bit more.

I don't know about your particular points but these sort of quotes are sometimes hard to digest for victims of abuse:

The victim must do all in his or her power to stop the abuse. Most often, the victim is innocent because of being disabled by fear or the power or authority of the offender. At some point in time, however, the Lord may prompt a victim to recognize a degree of responsibility for abuse. Your priesthood leader will help assess your responsibility so that, if needed, it can be addressed.

Otherwise the seeds of guilt will remain and sprout into bitter fruit. Yet no matter what degree of responsibility, from absolutely none to increasing consent, the healing power of the atonement of Jesus Christ can provide a complete cure. (See D&C 138:1–4.) Forgiveness can be obtained for all involved in abuse. (See A of F 1:3.) Then comes a restoration of self-respect, self-worth, and a renewal of life.

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/print/1992/04/healing-the-tragic-scars-of-abuse?lang=eng

[pam]

I love what Kimberly had to say in AskGramps

Q

Kimberly didn't say that. Gramps did. Kimberly only asked the question.

[McLainDow]

A good priesthood leader would direct an abuse victim to someone trained to deal with abuse not "Help" them decide how much they are to blame.

[Just_A_Guy]

Suzie, many thanks.

So, how do we address a concept that more often than not doesn't apply, and can be harmful for those who never needed to hear it in the first place--but still is, in a certain number of situations, true?

For example, here in Utah we've got a female twenty-something high school teacher who was repeatedly hit on by her 16-year-old male student and ultimately agreed to a sexual relationship with him. Now, assuming she is fully culpable and goes to jail--you've still got this teenaged boy who--as far as he's concerned--just scored big, and has no disincentive to try to repeat that kind of encounter. How do you counsel him?

[Suzie]

For example, here in Utah we've got a female twenty-something high school teacher who was repeatedly hit on by her 16-year-old male student and ultimately agreed to a sexual relationship with him. Now, assuming she is fully culpable and goes to jail--you've still got this teenaged boy who--as far as he's concerned--just scored big, and has no disincentive to try to repeat that kind of encounter. How do you counsel him?

A 16 year old still a child no matter how deep is his voice or how big are his muscles. The brain doesn't fully develop until approximately the age of 25 and no matter how much we (adults) think teenagers are supposed to know better, they don't. They cannot consent. They are not psychologically ready to do so. No matter how much he insisted, she (as the adult) is fully responsible for what happened. She was in a position of trust and authority over him.

Don't get me started with the double standards, a lot of people will not see this particular scenario as problematic, it's more some people might find it amusing that he "score big" but If such teacher was a male teacher and the victim was a 16 year old girl, we would hear other type of comments.

Our Church have been doing a good job warning the youth (and adults) about pornography, sexual lyrics in music and bad use of social media among other issues. There have been numerous studies linking early exposure to these things to behavior towards sex in adolescence.

The problem is that people struggle seeing sexual intercourse between a young adult and a hormonal male teenager as abuse because when we think about abuse, we think about a painful and violent episode.

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

LP, if I may ask: were the Ensign articles you found disconcerting, suggesting that victims need to OBTAIN forgiveness from God? Or were they suggesting that victims need to GIVE forgiveness to the perpetrator? I can see how either would seem troubling, but would like to understand your specific perspective a bit more.

Thanks for asking. It was the later--the emphasis on forgiving the perpetrator. It felt (still feels really) like the person telling me to forgive was more concerned about the abuser than me. And more concerned about my sin in not forgiving than in the sin of sexual abuse. It truly made me question if God even cared what happened to me. That might seem like a huge leap, but I have real difficulty trusting authority figures, and it was a small step for me.

It is only through my own study of the scriptures that I have come to some peace on the topic of forgiveness. And a large part of it is understanding that forgiveness is NOT the first step, but one of the last, if not THE last step of healing.

I don't know about your particular points but these sort of quotes are sometimes hard to digest for victims of abuse:

Oh yes! I don't even have to click the link to know which talk that is from, or to remember other comments in that talk that were also very painful. I appreciate the effort that was made to address a difficult subject, but that talk (and the other one) hurt more than helped me. A talk that DID help was Sister Okasaki's talk on Healing from Sexual Abuse, but it is pretty hard to find now...a real shame.

[Just_A_Guy]

LP, thanks for this. It's interesting to me that the Church's groups for spouses of porn addicts use the exact same manual as the groups for the addicts themselves (a twelve-step manual); and that forgiveness--both seeking and giving--is step 7 in that process. Do you have any thoughts on that process and its potential application to victims of abuse? (Naturally, as a supplement to--not a substitution for--regular counseling.) Also--is

the Cheiko Okazaki talk you're thinking of?

Suzie - Again, thanks for your thoughts. I know it's very much a hot-button issue whenever there's adult-on-minor sexual relations; and I want to be very clear that I'm not trying to excuse the adult here. But I guess where I'm going is: If a sixteen year old hits on another sixteen year old, and they have sexual contact; that sixteen year old is going to be expected to work with his bishop and engage the repentance process. It seems to me, though; that you're suggesting that if the object of the sixteen-year-old's affections is a legal adult who acquiesces to the teenager's advances, then the teenager should be excused from this ecclesiastical process.

a) Is this a correct sum-up of your position?

b) If so, is your position influenced by an assumption that no minor would engage in sexual contact with an adult unless the adult was the initiator and/or engaged in some degree of "grooming"?

c) More generally, do you think that all teenagers who have LoC issues should be excused from the ecclesiastical aspects of the traditional LDS repentance process?

d) What about so-called Romeo-Juliet situations?

e) From a therapeutic (not ecclesiastical) standpoint, then; it sounds like your approach would be to convince the teenager that he is, in fact, a victim; and that he had no role in what happened?

[Suzie]

It seems to me, though; that you're suggesting that if the object of the sixteen-year-old's affections is a legal adult who acquiesces to the teenager's advances, then the teenager should be excused from this ecclesiastical process.

a) Is this a correct sum-up of your position?

The teenager cannot consent when an adult is involved in the relationship. There is a dominance factor, the perpetrator is usually an authoritative figure, in many cases there is a history of abuse, grooming, etc. The problem is that most people seem to have an issue with the age gap. They might find the teenager responsible if he/she is 16 and the perpetrator is 20 but they will have a completely different opinion if the teenager is 16 and the perpetrator is 52.

b) If so, is your position influenced by an assumption that no minor would engage in sexual contact with an adult unless the adult was the initiator and/or engaged in some degree of "grooming"?

No, of course not. Countless teenagers are the ones initiating the pressure for sexual intimacy however, as I explain earlier in my post, our prefrontal cortex isn't fully developed until the age of 25, this part of the brain is extremely important in this scenario because it deals with rational behavior, decision making, moral intelligence and most importantly, judgment among other things.

c) More generally, do you think that all teenagers who have LoC issues should be excused from the ecclesiastical aspects of the traditional LDS repentance process?

No, of course not.

d) What about so-called Romeo-Juliet situations?

What exactly about it?

e) From a therapeutic (not ecclesiastical) standpoint, then; it sounds like your approach would be to convince the teenager that he is, in fact, a victim; and that he had no role in what happened?

From a therapeutic standpoint, if there is an adult involved in the relationship, the child in question is not responsible for what happened, it is not about convincing him/her of such but trying to get him/her the kind of counseling he/she needs along with their families.

[Just_A_Guy]

The teenager cannot consent when an adult is involved in the relationship. There is a dominance factor, the perpetrator is usually an authoritative figure, in many cases there is a history of abuse, grooming, etc. The problem is that most people seem to have an issue with the age gap. They might find the teenager responsible if he/she is 16 and the perpetrator is 20 but they will have a completely different opinion if the teenager is 16 and the perpetrator is 52.

So, to clarify--your answer to my question regarding the teenager's need to repent is "no, never"; or is it "possibly, depending on circumstances"?

No, of course not. Countless teenagers are the ones initiating the pressure for sexual intimacy however, as I explain earlier in my post, our prefrontal cortex isn't fully developed until the age of 25, this part of the brain is extremely important in this scenario because it deals with rational behavior, decision making, moral intelligence and most importantly, judgment among other things.

. . .

No, of course not.

I have some difficulty in reconciling these two statements. How can a teenager be insufficiently cognitively advanced to consent to/bear any accountability for intercourse with an adult under any circumstances (please note the qualifier--I don't want to be interpreted as suggesting that minors are always--or even frequently--accountable in any degree; just that it can happen), but (generally speaking) sufficiently cognitively advanced to consent to/bear any accountability for intercourse with another minor?

From a therapeutic standpoint, if there is an adult involved in the relationship, the child in question is not responsible for what happened, it is not about convincing him/her of such but trying to get him/her the kind of counseling he/she needs along with their families.

Help me to understand--what does the mental health community hold that the objective of counseling would be, in that rare scenario where the legal victim has no feelings of regret/guilt/violation, and perhaps is actually proud, of the underlying incident?

Edited March 3, 2014 by Just_A_Guy

[Quin]

A 16 year old still a child no matter how deep is his voice or how big are his muscles. The brain doesn't fully develop until approximately the age of 25 and no matter how much we (adults) think teenagers are supposed to know better, they don't. They cannot consent. They are not psychologically ready to do so. No matter how much he insisted, she (as the adult) is fully responsible for what happened. She was in a position of trust and authority over him.

Don't get me started with the double standards, a lot of people will not see this particular scenario as problematic, it's more some people might find it amusing that he "score big" but If such teacher was a male teacher and the victim was a 16 year old girl, we would hear other type of comments.

Our Church have been doing a good job warning the youth (and adults) about pornography, sexual lyrics in music and bad use of social media among other issues. There have been numerous studies linking early exposure to these things to behavior towards sex in adolescence.

The problem is that people struggle seeing sexual intercourse between a young adult and a hormonal male teenager as abuse because when we think about abuse, we think about a painful and violent episode.

What she said!

It's an abuse of

- power

- guardianship/trust

Like a judge having sex with a defendant, doctor with a patient, commanding officer with junior personel, boss with employee... Are all abuses of power, because there is an inequity on the relationship...

However, When an adult is having sex with a teen/child/someone entrusted wih their care, it also becomes and abuse of guardianship. Someone who is responsible for your well being, trading on that.

The defendant whose freedom depends on the judge's good will, the patient whose life is in the hands of their doctor, the CO who can put you in harms way, the boss who threatens your livelihood...

There's a good reason why these offenses are treated more harshly, even between adults; it's coercive.

Between an adult and child, it's more than coercive.

I don't care how badly my 2yo wants to ride her scooter in the street.

She doesn't understand the consequences of her actions.

And if I let her, just because She wants to... That's neglect of care.

Not her fault. Mine. As the burden of understanding and guardianship is on my shoulders.

My 16yo, or the neighbors 16yo, wants something ... Great. They want something.

Whoopteedo. Nothing new.

As the responsible adult, it's my duty to deny them when it's dangerous/ illegal/ etc.

To be safe.

To be trusted.

Not to neglect their needs for my wants.

When there is inequity in a relationship (professional or personal) , it is the person with greater status/power who is responsible for drawing and holding the line.

Q

[Suzie]

JAG, it's a dilemma for me. I struggle with giving you an answer through a religious standpoint because I work with teenagers and I know how they think and perceive things, every scenario is different depending on the circumstances, age, situation, emotional maturity, cognitive ability and a whole bunch of other issues, that's the best answer I can give you through a religious perspective.

However, when there is an adult in the picture, he/she is the one fully responsible for what happened. A teenager would always try to do something stupid because they make very poor choices, and that's why there are adults who are supposed to know better and put a stop to inappropriate behavior instead of accepting it.

When teenagers are involved in sexual intercourse with each other is mainly due to sexual experimentation and peer pressure, both issues typical of their age, they commit mistakes that later on they regret as adults. When there is an adult in the picture, it is the responsibility of the adult to ensure that inappropriate boundaries are not crossed and if they fail to do so and give on the demands of the teenager in question, they are the ones to blame simply because they are supposed to know better. No adult wakes up one morning and decides to have sex with a teenager just because he/she keeps insisting and they cannot resist.

When the legal victim shows no feelings of regret/guilt/violation, and perhaps seems proud, of the underlying incident is when counseling is needed the most because something is clearly wrong and there is a whole list of underlined issues that need addressing, pain is manifested in many ways and denial as well. Most victims of abuse take many years (in many cases a lifetime) to understand and heal the abuse.

In the case of a teenager in this particular scenario, the pain and scars of what took place might not be visible to the naked eye but the confusion, shame and pain goes in the inside (specially in young boys) and the scars of what took place will probably rear its ugly head sometime in early/middle adulthood when it's time to look for a more stable relationship. The issues will surface at some point and if the teenager in question did not receive the kind of help he/she needed they will fail to understand the why and they will put themselves in difficult situations. Hence, counseling is key to make the teenager understand exactly what took place.

[Just_A_Guy]

Thanks, Suzie. I guess the part I have trouble accepting, is a situation where the teenager did the exact same things in wooing the adult, as he would have done in wooing another teenager--but then (for ecclesiastical purposes) we create this alternate reality for the teenager that discounts the teenager's own conduct and objectives, which conduct and objectives would have been inappropriate even if directed to another teenager and which were (hypothetically) formed and initiated before the adult ever indicated her willingness to accept and reciprocate those overtures.

I mean, imagine these two scenarios:

Scenario 1 - Johnny is 16; Billy is 16:

Johnny: Hey, Billy--I got this gun. Wanna go shoot out Old Man Jones' Window?

Billy: Sure.

***

(Two days later) Johnny's bishop: Johnny, you chowderhead! What were you thinking!?!

Johnny: But--but--that Billy--

Johnny's bishop: Forget Billy. He's an idiot. Let's talk about you . . .

Scenario 2 - Johnny is 16; Billy is 19:

Johnny: Hey, Billy--I got this gun. Wanna go shoot out Old Man Jones' Window?

Billy: Sure.

***

(Two days later) Johnny's bishop: Johnny, what you need to understand is, this wasn't your fault. That Billy is a predator, and possibly sick in the head--whatever the situation, he clearly took advantage of you. But with time and treatment, I promise, you'll make a full recovery.

Johnny: [Wonders if his therapist will have a gun collection, and snickers.]

I just have a hard time getting my head around this.

In the case of a teenager in this particular scenario, the pain and scars of what took place might not be visible to the naked eye but the confusion, shame and pain goes in the inside (specially in young boys) and the scars of what took place will probably rear its ugly head sometime in early/middle adulthood when it's time to look for a more stable relationship. The issues will surface at some point and if the teenager in question did not receive the kind of help he/she needed they will fail to understand the why and they will put themselves in difficult situations. Hence, counseling is key to make the teenager understand exactly what took place.

Honestly, I rather suspect that those same issues--to a much lesser degree, perhaps--are generally applicable to all teens who have had sexual relationships; particularly in conservative societies. Does the professional literature agree?

Edited March 3, 2014 by Just_A_Guy

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

LP, thanks for this. It's interesting to me that the Church's groups for spouses of porn addicts use the exact same manual as the groups for the addicts themselves (a twelve-step manual); and that forgiveness--both seeking and giving--is step 7 in that process. Do you have any thoughts on that process and its potential application to victims of abuse? (Naturally, as a supplement to--not a substitution for--regular counseling.) Also--is

the Cheiko Okazaki talk you're thinking of?

First-- YES! That is the talk. Thank you! I've never heard the audio before, only heard it. Listening to it brought tears to my eyes. I could just hug you for this. I'm going to put this link on my blog and my FB page. Thanks again!

About the 12 Step Program...oy vey! I think that the 12 Step Program is wonderful and inspired for those it was intended for--people with addictions. BUT I do not think it is a helpful tool for survivors, not at all.

I have a relative who attends a 12 Step Program and he had heard that it is helpful for survivors too, and highly recommended that I try it. I went to a meeting with my husband. They were discussing the first step: Honesty-admit that you yourself are powerless to overcome your addictions and your life has become unmanageable.

When they read it at the beginning of the meeting, I was deeply hurt and started crying. I wept throughout the entire meeting, and couldn't wait for it to end. I should have just got up and left quietly, but I felt paralyzed and as powerless as child. All I could do was try to cry as quietly as possible. My husband reached over and held my hand, and the other people in the meeting looked at me, in a caring way, but didn't know what to do. I just sat there and wished I could die.

Why was that so hard for me? Because as someone newly confronting my memories, and burdened with tremendous shame, what I heard was "be honest, admit that you deserve the shame that you feel. You are evil and vile."

Awful, awful experience. So no, I do not recommend the 12 step program to survivors.

Regarding the step about forgiveness...I didn't get that far in the steps obviously so I don't know much about it. As far as my personal understanding about how survivors get to the place of forgiveness without denying their true feelings--that answer could fill a book. In fact, it did! I wrote a book about my questions and the answers I found (mostly in the New Testament). I will self-publish it in September. But I will give you the short answer here--

I believe that survivors first need help to deal with the terrible burden of shame that they feel. Imagine--we are counseled not to watch rated R movies, and yet I had rated X memories. Not only that but I felt RESPONSIBLE for what had happened. (I know now, and I knew then that that was completely illogical, but that was the way I FELT and logic did nothing to ease that feeling.) For me an essential part of overcoming the shame, was to allow myself to feel anger toward my abuser, and put the guilt on him where it rightly belonged.

I believe it is essential to accept the anger and work through it, not only to help with the shame, but because denying our feelings does not make them go away. For me this is where the Atonement comes in--the Savior helps us as we work through the pain, and anger. He does not condemn us for being angry about being sexually assaulted, instead he weeps with us and he is angry with our perpetrators. Gradually, through honestly facing our memories and feelings, we begin to heal. Again the Savior and usually professional therapy are part of this process. When the wounds are cleaned and dressed, so to speak, only then can a survivor, symbolically take Christ's hand, say to an abuser, "What you did doesn't hurt me anymore. I forgive you."

That is why I feel forgiveness is one of the last steps, if not the last step in the process. I have forgiven my mother for her role (she did not abuse me, but there were other issues). In some ways I was more angry with her than the abuser because I felt a sense of betrayal from her, regarding part in it all. I have NOT forgiven the person who abused me. I don't seek revenge. He is very sick with cancer right now, and I could call and confront him, but I won't. I don't want anything to do with him. But I still cannot say what he did did not hurt me. If I saw him in person, I think I would still feel--after all these years--the fear of him that I felt as a child, and anger as an adult. Until I am able to work through those feelings, I will not claim to have forgiven him. I believe that day will come, and I look forward to it, but I'm not pressuring myself to hurry.

In my book, I back up all my opinions with scripture and share my personal experiences of how these scriptures have aided in my healing thus far. I hope that helps answer your question.

Edited March 3, 2014 by LiterateParakeet

[Suzie]

JAG, I agree with several of your points and I do understand why it seems not to make any sense, specially with the age gap you mentioned. One thing to remember though, the brain of a younger adolescent versus an older adolescent is quite different, even for a couple of years and they all develop at different rates but personally I do not see a 19 year old legal adult in the same way I see a 30 year old adult.The 19 year old brain still developing, not the 30 year old adult.

There are parts of the brain of a 16 year that are developing at full speed, yet the PFC as I mentioned before still very immature, not only at 16, 19 but even at 20.

Hence, it is hard for people to grasp the concept that a teenager who seems so smart and often times "mature" all of the sudden does something really stupid. Teenagers may store rules very well, but because their PFC isn't fully mature yet, they do not fully comprehend the importance of adherence of those rules (judgment).

I call the PFC, "our little voice" that stops us, adults, from engaging in inappropriate behavior. How many times you felt to do something very stupid but you stopped yourself from doing that? That's the PFC. When you are a teen, this little voice is not fully mature yet.

Hence, I do not feel sorry for a neuro-typical adult with no apparent PFC damage that engages in inappropriate behavior with a teenager. The latter doesn't know any better, even if it seems that way for most people, it is the adult the one responsible for stopping such behavior. They cannot claim: "the teenager made me do it, he/she insisted", it doesn't agree with science.