(CW Child abuse) Why do mothers not protect their children from abusive boyfriends

I didn’t say it wasn’t a choice, but the choices are driven by previous experiences. So, for example, men who abuse women may do so because they see women as weaker, they can more easily over power a woman, abusing a woman makes them feel powerful because they were abused and felt powerless as children, or made to feel ‘less than’ , whereas they don’t feel powerful against another man.

Alternatively, they abuse women because they have abandonment issues and they think that by abusing her and making her fearful, she will stay.

Or maybe they grew up in an environment where it was commonplace for their father to abuse their mother, therefore they believe this is normal and the way men should behave.

Narcissists are abusive and have a grandiose sense of self, but childhood adversity, feeling less than, and having chronically low self esteem is a cause of NPD.

Just because there are reasons, it doesn’t mean I think it’s okay, or think it’s okay to excuse abusers - after all, they do have a choice to seek help etc as adults, and people should always try to leave an abusive situation, I’m just acknowledging that there is always something that precludes those poor choices.

I support all victims of abuse and show great understanding. Sadly I refuse to cause them harm by labelling them as future abusers and fit for the bin because of what they experience. Shame you do.

Again I never said that. Without the right help and support some might. Just like some might kill themselves, or become addicts, or die young, or be more likely to suffer from mental health problems, or certain physical illnesses.

Out of curiosity, at what point do you stop seeing someone as a victim and label them an abuser who made a choice?

At the first incident no matter the circumstances ? When they reach adulthood?

I get verbally abused on a daily basis by some of the kids I work with. Sometimes physically too. I have to put myself between them and another kid and so on. Some are very defensive of me which causes a whole host of other issues. Do I just shrug my shoulders and say "oh well they made a choice " , their background and experiences have no bearing on this , might as well lock them up now and throw away the key?

I didn't say they would all do it. I said they would do it TO all. The fact that they do not do it TO all proves they have it completely under control.

If it is not a choice - why do they not abuse every single person they come across? Why do they not abuse their boss, their mates, strangers on the street, why do they all suddenly lose control of their genetics around the same person each time? How does genetics cause that to happen?

By all means if you can explain why a parent who abuses their child has genes that cause them to abuse but yet only with their child, only in private, never with anyone else? Seems odd how genes would know that they are around that person and are in private? I do not buy that the person is in control in all other circumstances and their aggressive gene oddly takes over and they cannot control themselves when in certain circumstances.

It is by choice. A choice driven by their brain choosing to do it as they want to.

They wouldn’t ‘all do it’ if it was genes, things aren’t as simple as that. People have different experiences of childhood and handle things differently, even if they grew up in the same home. Things like gender, types of abuse, natural temperament, birth order are all contributing factors.

If you have a genetic predisposition to aggressive behaviour, for instance, but you are brought up in a loving and stable environment, you are far less likely to be abusive when compared to someone who is genetically predisposed to be aggressive and grows up in adversity. The two must interact.

You keep saying ‘it’s a choice.’ I absolutely accept this, but a choice driven by what?

I support all victims of abuse and show great understanding. Sadly I refuse to cause them harm by labelling them as future abusers and fit for the bin because of what they experience. Shame you do.

I know some will lie and some will be truthful. I think it is quite naive to assume a criminal who has lied about what they are doing will not lie to get out of it and get some sympathy. As I said what is the percentage who lie and who do not?

Behaviour to abuse is down to choice that is all. If it was genes they would do it to all not just the child in the house. If it was out of their control they would be doing it to all. The very fact they only do it when in private and to a certain someone or certain people shows it is a choice and shows they are in control all the time.

Some prisoners will lie to get away with it as rapists do and as I stated some will not - you chose to ignore that for some reason - why? When it comes to rapist almost all will lie to get away with it - why do you assume child abusers to be different and honest suddenly at the point of being caught when most other criminals are shown to be liars at that point? Why do you think they buck the trend and why do you believe criminals who abuse yet accept others will lie? Seems odd that this would not follow the same pattern?

@schmeler I haven't said any of the things you're ranting about.

I honestly hope you don't work with victims of abuse because your understanding of these issues is awfully lacking and what little you do have is too one dimensional to be of any benefit.

Okay. I think your issue is you’re taking things too literally when I’m trying to use broad examples to explain my point. Life is complicated, nobody is saying that people who are incarcerated have never been loved, but many lack either love, stability or both. There’s no way you can possibly know they are lying, but if we are assuming they are lying and have never suffered adversity, then their behaviour must have a biological explanation? However, up thread you stated behaviour can’t be blamed on genes or biology as that’s making excuses, nor can it be based on ACEs? So what, then?

All behaviour has reasons. If they just ‘want to’ abuse as you state, then what causes them to ‘want to’ - it isn’t genes or environment, is it? It isn’t an innate drive?

You’re making out other people are judgemental, yet are calling prisoners who say they have suffered ACE’s liars? Who is judgemental now because it suits your argument?

I help victims do not ignore then and justify abuse. I acknowledge that they suffer but I also understand that trauma doesn't make ppl into the textbook violent criminals that you portray. In fact there are so many responses to trauma, many common ones are overworking, people pleasing etc. Also I understand that not all need therapy as people's responses to trauma vary and their needs vary. Labelling ppl are damaged and their future is fucked and they are hopeless cases is shocking and causes significant harm. The ACES have done that and prevented ppl from being mothers (as they were labelled abusers because of their past) and prevented ppl from achieving their goals. ACEs also prevents ppl from getting therapy which I disagree with - why should we stop ppl from getting support who needs it? That is not something I will ever back - by all means you back picking and choosing which kids get support and those who do not meet the 10 listed ACEs have to do without, that is not a policy I support at all and shocking that some do.

I also refuse to excuse abuse and justify it. So you wish me to lobby to exclude kids from therapy and put support in place for kids who only have one of 10 ACEs and fuck the rest and force kids into therapy who do not need it because we think they do and we label them as destined for utter shit without which is not the case. I refuse to do that. I will not pathologise abuse nor will I exclude kids who need it or force kids who do not or not yet ready. Nor will I label them as fucked for life and limit their future because of some bullshit about them being abusers because they were homeless at 4 months old!

You only talk about ppl with ACEs being more likely to abuse. So if their sibling died that makes them more likely to abuse? Doesn't at all.

Why do so many say they have ACEs in the same way that almost all rapists say they are falsely accused....? These are criminals who have lied throughout to cover their tracks and suddenly you believe them when they get busted? As I said - some will have and some will be lying to get sympathy and a lesser sentence and excuse it. What is the percentage of abusers who lie to cover their tracks as almost 100% of rapists do and what percent really were abused? learning to understand that this doesn't cause abusers to abuse. Having something in your past doesn't make you more likely to do it. Being excused for lesser crimes does though as it empowers people to commit more and be excused for more.

Many criminals do have childhoods of love and stability having ACEs can also mean that they still had love and stability but suffered in other ways. Having ACEs doesn't automatically link to a poor unloved family life as a child nor does it mean they were abused.

@schmeler do you even realise that your word soup of made up stats not only do they not help anyone, but they actively harm children that are suffering the effects from ACEs, trauma, abuse ,neglect etc?

It's only by acknowledging and understanding these adverse effects that campaigning, lobbying and change can happen. Change costs money.Proper help and support put in place costs money. Therapy costs money. Proper placements and appropriate parenting techniques cost money. Addiction support costs money. And so on. The government is reluctant enough to spend without people like you going nothing to see here. There's nothing happening. Nothing bad is going to happen in the future. Everything is fine. They're aaaaall fine.

I didn’t say all ACE’s were about abuse. I cannot be bothered anymore. Why do so many criminals have a history of ACE’s as a pp pointed out? Very few criminals have childhoods full of love and stability.

Just think what you like I’m not arguing with you over this anymore, you spend a lot of time twisting replies.

As is the assumption that a mother is the best person to have custody

But they are not more likely to, they are less likely to. You have suffered trauma and are not abnormal. I am sorry that you went through that but you have normal behaviours in response to what happened to you. Your behaviours are normal not abnormal.

Experiences do shape you and if you suffer abuse you are less likely to abuse others. You are using stereotypes of people harming others as a response to trauma which is not the case. There are no textbook ways of responding to trauma but we label all who harm others and say there must be a reason. The reason is choice. It is a choice for them. They know it is wrong which is why they do not do it to all in their life. They only do it to those who they want to harm and in private too. If it was not a choice they would do it to all in their life which they do not. It is multigenerational because ppl excuse it and justify it and say they cannot control it and say it is ok and not their fault. It is completely their fault. They chose it they own it. Simple.

Also ACEs is not about abuse. Sad but shockingly that ppl assume ACEs is all about abuse it is not. ACEs in theory is anything that can cause trauma and abuse is only one of those.

Abusers sometimes do have a back story but many do not have a back story - many will say they do when that is not the truth. Many will use lies to try and justify their behaviour and to excuse it and get out of punishment in the same way that rapists say they are falsely accused when the reality is that they are not. What % of abusers are lying to get sympathy and get away with their crimes and what % are telling the truth?

There will be some who have been abused and there will be some who suffered other ACEs but again ACEs is not just abuse so what if they have an ACE of health inequality or suffering a serious injury in childhood which many kids do? What about a pet dying or being homeless, having a sibling die? Are kids who suffer such events more likely to abuse and if so why? Also are they most likely to do the same to others - kill their pets or make others homeless etc?

We can conclude that people’s life experiences have absolutely no bearing on future behaviour whatsoever except if it’s positive 😄

@schmeler Gaslighting people over and over is very unpleasant. I don't believe your posts are in good faith so I'm not going to engage with you any further.

@schmeler

They are less likely to abuse

Any source for that claim? Especially considering the possible adverse effects of ACEs can be considered risk factors. Like more likely to be incarcerated or more likely to have addiction issues.

How is it a misrepresentation. The line being used was that abuse happens only to children and adults do not suffer abuse.

So crack on an explain what was meant by adults not suffering abuse as abuse if only for kids? I must be mistaken when someone said that abuse is only for kids and adults are not abused. By all means explain why adults do not suffer abuse or how I am wrong by responding to the comments that abuse happens only to children.

I said people with ACE’s are more likely to abuse, I did not label them all abusers. I myself have ACE’s, have been severally emotionally abused as a child and have mental health issues as a result, I’m not an abuser, although I have unhealthy behaviours and attachment issues, but I’m very self aware after years of attempting to understand myself and I’m working on those areas that are less than perfect.

The point I’m making is that your experiences shape you, so obviously for a lot of people who have been abused will go on to be abusers themselves. It’s not that it’s not a choice for them, but more that they justify it or frame it is ‘not that bad’ because it’s been normalised to them. Hence, it’s often a multigenerational issue.

Many people WON’T go on to abuse, because their experiences turn them the other way and they don’t want others to experience the same as they did, but to claim with such certainty that people with ACEs are less likely to abuse is just nonsense. Abusers usually have a backstory, but that’s NOT the same as me excusing it. It is NEVER OKAY.

But your friend is a potential abuser is he not? He is more likely to abuse kids so how do you know he is not - because he says he is not?

He now has a predisposition to abuse and is male so by your reckoning cannot control his aggression. All adding up to labelling someone which I think is abhorrent. So your mate isn't an abuser, isn't a potential one as you know his genes and that it hasn't impacted on his brain development etc oddly enough but others are? Make it make sense!

Maybe watch that video back and be more critical of it.

Nope living is poverty is not about poor role models. So a family who work in MW jobs who survive wage to wage and who work their asses off to provide for the kids, show them love and care and support them are poor role models? I think you lack understanding of poverty and shockingly show your classism against those who struggle financially. Nope it doesn't cause parents to be harsh with punishments - again showing shocking classism. Being on the poverty line doesn't reflect how many hours you work. I work 100 hours a week. I am not on the poverty line nor am I an abuser or likely to abuse due to hours I work. I think your prejudice against those with little money is evident and the reason why those with money get away with abuse so often as they are excused - those with money can and do punish harshly. Also those who work in some high pressured jobs work extended hours - again showing a lack of understanding of jobs and pressure within the workplace.

It doesn't make logical sense that everyone will not become an abuser. Which is why I didn't say it. I said those with ACEs are less likely. I talked of those as a whole group in comparison with those without as a whole group. Basic comparisons. At no point did I said everyone who has ACEs will not abuse. In fact I actually said that some with ACEs will but most will not and that is down to choice not their experiences but the group as a whole are less likely than the group without. Not rocket science as data supports it.

You are saying that they are likely to abuse and it often happens which they are not and it does not. They are less likely to abuse. You happen watched a video and without being critical of it or read the actual study of ACEs and know where the framework came from (it was stolen by the way) and then saying that all those with ACEs are potential abusers!

How about you stop labelling ppl as potential abusers because you failed to understand basic human trauma responses.

Children making indecent images and sharing indecent images of children is illegal. If a child takes a photo of their own body and shares it they are making indecent images of children and sharing indecent images of children which is illegal. Doesn't matter if it is their own body. It is illegal to make or distribute it. Quite flabbergasted that you think making and sharing images of children is acceptable if they do it themselves. Also sharing images to others is illegal and it is abuse to share indecent images of children.

No I haven't randomly quoted at all. There is a reference list and so I used that reference list to read the papers behind it. So yes it is about studies. I was quoting the studies that this was about. Clearly you saw one sentence and quoted it without reading the studies from the reference list. I read countless articles off that list and it met with interesting reading and quite something too!

Only one youth reported posting - doesn't make sense? So a study which says X is more likely to do A and B when only 1 child reports it and you say that is attributed to the whole population of the USA because one child did it? Really?

A study is a piece of research. Is this not researching previous studies? Or just listing them? Is a literature review studying previous literature or not?

I do not need educating thank you but I would prefer it if someone would read and research instead of googling and posting the first article that comes up and quoting random sentences when they haven't read the studies which it came from.

So can you explain the contradictions? You conveniently left those out.
Oh and here is a post about images with children from the NSPCC.

It's ironic that a poster who is apparently so clued up on abuse, and who is repeatedly accusing others of thinking abuse is ok, is in fact being abusive themselves by constantly gaslighting people to quite an alarming extent.

I’m not even formulating a proper response to that as you are twisting what I say to suit yourself. I am not labelling all people with ACE’s as abusers. Think what you like and keep misrepresenting and misinterpreting things to suit what you want to believe if it makes you happy 😄

Why are people aggressive - they choose to be. It shows they have complete control over it. If it was genetic the wouldn't have control over it. Aggression is about control.

But that doesn't happen as you are trying to label all as abusers. ACEs are also not about having a miserable childhood at all. You can have ACEs and have a happy and perfectly happy childhood and visa versa. You can also have a very miserable childhood without ACEs. As human behaviour cannot be predicted. Also again it is suggesting that ACEs happen within the home which is not always the case.

You just said that those who have ACEs often abuse others - the policy locally to me in the past was to remove babies at birth because they are potential abusers based on their past. So if someone with ACEs often abuse others - surely they then run the risk of abusing the child which was the thought process behind it. Labelling them as abusers before they abuse. It also prevents abused kids from seeking help which is so wrong in my eyes. All kids who need help should get it but not all kids with ACEs need help as again this is not a prediction of their outcomes.

The ACE study is often not read by many of those and as the authors say: "the ACE score is neither a diagnostic tool nor is it predictive at the individual level."

They themselves say it cannot be used to predict the outcomes of individuals as we cannot predict human behaviour. They say it is wrong to use it in this way as it is harmful to label ppl with a label they do not need or which will prevent them, limit them or cause problems with them being successful in life.

Males choose to be abusive as do women. It isn't an innate thing to be abusive and again that is quite the claim that men are abusers by nature which they are not. Abusers abuse because of choice. They want to. They are enabled by society excusing their behaviour and attributing it to 'loss of control, genes and such like' instead of saying all perpetrators make a choice and show full control not lack of.

Ask yourself why abusers are aggressive only to certain people? If they can control it around their mates, their family, their mother, their boss, the bus driver etc and 'lose control' always with the same person then it isn't a loss of control at all. It shows complete control and choice.