Supporting an abuser?

[SensitiveNamechange]

Namechanged for sensitivity reasons. Can't give details, but recently found out that a friend has been accused of sexually abusing a child. I am friends with him, and the abused child's mother. Right now I hate him, and am trying to support the mother and child as well as I can. I firmly believe that it is important to believe a victim no matter how difficult it can be, but part of me just doesn't think it is possible.
He is my friend, he has cared for my DD (another worry, frankly) and I have cared about him for years. Is it wrong to want to help him too? I don't realistically think I can, without jeapordising my relationship with the mother, who is frankly more deserving of my support.

What to do? Sorry, it just helps to try to unmuddle my thoughts a little writing it down.

Actually your assumption that a five year old would find sexual assault more traumatic than a 15 year old, is very dubious to say the least.

What evidence do you have for that ? Is it just a "feeling", based on prejudice? Or do you have any research you can point to?

Because my assumption is that if a child has been abused, if it is handled carefully and sensitively, precisely because s/he hasn't got that adult awareness of what has happened (though I'm not happy with the "adult" bit of that viz a 15 year old, but letting that pass), it might actually be less traumatic than for a teenager who has some idea of what correct sexual behaviour is and is also surrounded by messages that if she's been assaulted, it's her fault. It might actually be more traumatic for someone with budding sexual awareness who hasn't yet started to "own" her own sexuality.

I have no way of knowing that and I don't know enough about it to point to any research in that direction, but I should think my assumption is at least as valid as your's. My gut feeling is that too many people think that because 15 year olds wear make up and have breasts, they're up for grabs in the way a younger child isn't as regards sexual abuse. It's beyond disgusting, that attitude.

Thunderbolts and Basil -

I'm no expert on legal definitions, but I'm pretty sure "sexual abuse" most certainly includes inappropriate touching.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_assault#United_Kingdom

------

Sexual assault is a statutory offence in England and Wales. It is created by section 3 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 which defines "sexual assault" as when a person (A)

1.intentionally touches another person (B),
2.the touching is sexual,
3.B does not consent to the touching, and
4.A does not reasonably believe that B consents.

-------

A detailed argument about what may or may not have been meant by the sketchy description of the OP is probably beyond most of our expertise. I only meant that it could cover a wide variety of crimes, from grave to less grave, and the police's appraisal of the potentially damaging effect on the victim from having to give evidence (if indeed that is the important factor that prettyfly said it is) would vary accordingly.

there was no misunderstanding or phrasing issue confidence. you used the term 'minor indiscretion' in the context of child abuse. what's to misunderstand?

you've made yourself perfectly clear no matter how you try to obfuscate it now.

child abuse is grave confidence. is that hard for you to comprehend?

there's not less grave child abuse.

is that complicated?

So when was the last time a man stood in the dock accused of a sexual assault because he had touched a 15 year old's leg inappropriately?

Never is when.

Let's be clear shall we. People who use examples like "touching someone's leg" or "playing doctors and nurses" etc., are trying to minimise the horror of child abuse.

|That's the agenda there. Always. Whether they know it or not.

No need for the rest of us to stick our heads in the sand about it though.

How devastating. One friend is desperately in need of your support as the mother of a victim of something none of us ever want to have anything to do with, and you have just lost a good, old friend for reasons none of us really ever want to have to think too hard about.

You are in shock over the perpetrator being your old friend, and in shock over your other friend and her child's experience.

Of course you support the victims. Really horrible choice though.

There should be a law against people who make shit arguments like confidence ever using wikipedia.

(It just makes your argument look even weaker confidence for the record)

Santa it might just be me but you look as if you are trying to convict confidence of being an abuser. I think you and confidence as well as others have got in to a bit of a personal thing now and need to step back, all of you.

In my own head I do have some worries about taking a predetermined standpoint, if we are to always believe the child then it leaves the instancess of false and maliciouse acustation even more glaringly in the spotlight. You and others are very right to say that these are tiny numbers of cases, and yet they recieve far more publicity and gain much more sympathy for the idea of false accusation than they would merit.

child abuse is grave confidence. is that hard for you to comprehend?

Well I said as much myself - I used the word "serious" rather than grave, but same difference. So I'm not sure why you would think I don't comprehend.

there's not less grave child abuse.

Well there I disagree. If there's "more grave" (and unfortunately there certainly seems to be) then there's "less grave". By definition. Although I'd clarify again that I say this on my understanding that the term includes things like inappropriate touching (and AFAIK, even things like showing someone pornography without touching them at all). These crimes to me are "less grave" than penetrative gang rape accompanied by torture. You feel otherwise, so we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Anyway this discussion is not so much about the acts per se, as about the effect on the victim - it all started from prettyfly's claim that the police don't like to make a victim testify unless they are pretty sure of conviction, because of that effect. All I said was that that effect is VARIABLE from case to case, not constant. This is both blindingly obvious and acknowledged by psychological study.

Thunderbolts and Basil - from the first few random google searches I can find. None of which look like particularly accuser-biased sites:

www.nspcc.org.uk/help-and-advice/worried-about-a-child/online-advice/sexual-abuse/sexual-abuse_wda85536.html

Child sexual abuse involves enticing or forcing a child (or young person) to take part in sexual activities, or encouraging a child to behave in sexually inappropriate ways. Child sexual abuse includes:

?sexual touching of any part of the body, clothed or unclothed, including using an object

-----

www.ncvc.org/ncvc/main.aspx?dbName=DocumentViewer&DocumentID=32369

Sexual assault takes many forms including attacks such as rape or attempted rape, as well as any unwanted sexual contact or threats. Usually a sexual assault occurs when someone touches any part of another person's body in a sexual way, even through clothes, without that person's consent.

-----

www.nidirect.gov.uk/sv-definition

Sexual assault covers any other sort of sexual contact and behaviour that is unwanted, ranging from touching to any other activity if it is sexual.

-----

www.womenshealth.gov/publications/our-publications/fact-sheet/sexual-assault.cfm

What is sexual assault?
Sexual assault and abuse is any type of sexual activity that you do not agree to, including:

?Inappropriate touching

-----

Happy? No, thought not. I could go looking for the exact words used in the Sexual offences Act, but something tells me it's not gonna be worth the trouble because you've already decided what you think and don't want to admit you're wrong. I could even wait for one of you to provide a better source for a definition than the five I have, all of which include inappropriate touching. But something tells me that's not going to happen either.

Dear fucking god confidence, find another interest.

And the last time a man stood in the dock accused of sexual abuse after touching a 15 year old's leg?

Nothing in Wikipedia about that?

Confidence that's about right I have all the paperwork from scottish police I was abused by my LOVING BROTHER from 4-12 infact raped by him all that time. I spent an hour and a half today meeting the DC in charge of my case down england today. I actually gave ny statement on camera in Scotland in October and all Ican say is I don't know how anyone could lie and put themself through the trauma of that. I have been actually very worried about being judged about this and told today not to worry as it wouldn't happen well seems I'm right after all people are rather judgemental.

Strangely Basil, I don't have a ready list of links to every fucking sexual assault case that ever happened. Regardless of thunderbolt's attempt to divert the discussion from yours and her original false claim, it's not actually an abiding interest of mine.

But since you insist, here's the first one I can find:

www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/jury-considers-verdict-in-trial-of-taxi-driver-accused-of-sexual-assault-on-female-passenger/story-e6freoof-1226197750846

The girl was 18, but the crime was still "sexual assault".

Happy? No, thought not. Look, this is really silly. It's a simple question of fact that sexual abuse, both legally and in the definitions of those involved with dealing with it, includes inappropriate touching. So you and thunder were wrong. Big deal - we're all wrong sometimes. But now we have to go round and round on it to try and turn it back on me. Why? Let's just agree on a simple matter of definition, for which there is ample evidence, and move on.

Thunder - Dear fucking god confidence, find another interest.

You're funny. Quick link to wiki to keep things brief and simple - "Oh dear, Confidence should be BANNED FROM USING WIKI!". Further links to more reputable sources to address you're point: "Oh dear, confidence should FIND ANOTHER INTEREST".

notthefullshilling

I think you need to repeat that last post again, they're not listening!

I think the hijack fo the OP's thread has gone too far now can we return to the topic?

OK so you had to go to australia to find one, but well done...

Confidence and Basil, how about starting your own thread, I can't imagine the OP has gained much from your input.

Well actually I posted something very supportive to the OP earlier on but MN chose to delete it, presumably because it made reference to confidence's remark. Though it didn't repeat it completely so I don't really know what thjeir problem is.

confidence

spamming doesn't trump cogent argument, I am afraid

you dropped a massive fucking clanger here, and you would be better to hold your hands up properly and admit it

I am very happy to see MNHQ saw sense here

for the benefit of any lurkers, I also want to say my deleted comment on here has gone for the express reason that it repeated yours verbatim

in the email I got from MNHQ after I reported your post, my behaviour on this thread was described as "exemplary" and yours as "offensive"

now perhaps you will not be allowed to continue to attempt to drip your disgusting views around this site under the guise of "common sense" and "reasoned debate"

and in fact, by removing "viewpoints" such as confidence's that are presented as "fact" it can only help the OP, and others going through similar horrendous experiences

dotty I am so sorry that happened to you, and I hope you get the resolution you deserve

Confidence and Basil, how about starting your own thread, I can't imagine the OP has gained much from your input.

Fair enough. I think the little question of definition with Basil has been resolved now anyway.

You can't really expect me not to reply while people accuse me of saying things I didn't say or meaning things I didn't mean. But I'm happy to drop it now if everyone else is.

I'll bet you are.

Funny AF - I thought my not responding to your last little dig could be pretty easily interpreted as meaning I'm genuine in not wanting to take the derail further. But do keep going, won't you.