Conference turris::womannotes-v3

    This is what I posted in Note 55.15, which prompted Ann B. to start
    this note.
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    I guess I'm confused about some of the descriptions that might be
    called answers to the question, what is abuse?  For example, we are
    fairly casual about nudity in our house, after showers or when getting
    dressed in the morning.  Our girl, now 8, has been becoming more aware
    of modesty and more concerned about who "sees" her, even in the family,
    and my son (6) imitates this behavior (in minor degree) in typical
    little-brother, tease-y style.  No one pushes them about it, in either
    direction.  One of the definitions in the article
    Herb posted in 55.9 includes the phrase 'exposure to' or 'exposing adult
    genitals'.  How literally is this to be taken?  If I forget my robe and
    walk nude from the shower to my room in the presence of my child, is
    this abuse?  I am certain it is not.  But the definition makes me
    uneasy, by seeming to include it.
    
    Disclaimer: I am _not_ questioning that abuse occurs, but only trying
    to understand better what it is, beyond some fairly clear definitions.
                     
    Sara
    

    re. -1
    Are you in all honesty trying to tell that someone who's not a naturist
    *has* to make sure the body is covered all the time in case a member of
    the family is around?
    And if they don't they have a problem?
    Well, if there's one way to make people (especially kids)feel uneasy about
    their or someone elses body.....
    
    Charles

    This reply is from a noter who wishes to remain anonymous at this
    time.  (Thanks for your prompt response to my request.)
    
    						Ann B., comod
    
    ========================================================================
    
    From Bradshaw's The Family

    Sexual abuse involves whole families. It can be divided as follows
    (classification from Pia Mellody)

    1.	Physical Sexual Abuse

    	This involves hands-on touching in a sexual way. The range of abusive
    behaviors that are sexual include sexualized hugging or kissing; any kind
    of sexual touching or fondling; oral and anal sex; masturbation of the
    victim or forcing the victim to masturbate the offender; sexual intercourse

    2.	Overt Sexual Abuse

    	This involves voyeurism, exhibitionism. This can be outside or inside
    the home. Parents often sexually abuse children through voyeurism and
    exhibitionism. The critieria for in-home voyeurism or exhibitonism is
    whether the parent is being sexually stimulated. Sometimes the parent be be
    so out of touch with his own sexuality that he is not aware of how sexual he
    is being. The child almost always had a kind of icky feeling about it.

    	One client told me how her father would leer at her in her panties
    coming out of the bathroom. Others speak of having no privacy in the house,
    much less the bathroom. I've had a dozen male clients whose mothers bathed
    their genital parts up through age eight or nine years old.
    	Children can feel sexual around parents. This is not sexual abuse
    unless the parent originated it. It all depends on the parents. Here I;m
    not talking about a parent having a passing sexual thought or feeling. It's
    about a parent using a child for his own conscious or unconscious sexual
    sexual stimulation.

    3.	Covert Sexual Abuse

    	(a) Verbal - This involves inappropriate sexual talking. Dad or any
    significant male calling women "whores" or "cunts" or objectified sexual
    names. Or Mom or any significant females deprecating men in a sexual way.
    It also involves parents or caretakers having to know about every detail of
    one's private sexual life, asking questions about a child's sexual
    physiology or questioning for minute details about dates.
    	Covert sexual abuse involves not receiving adequate sexual information.
    I've had several female clients who didn't know what was happening when
    they began menstruating. I've had three female clients who did not know
    that  their vagina had an opening in it until they were 20 years old.
    	An overt (sic: -think this is a missprint, think 'covert' was intended)
    	An overt kind of sexual abuse occurs when Dad or Mom talk about sex in
    front of their children when the age level of their children is
    inappropriate. It also occurs when Mom or Dad make sexual remarks about the 
    sexual parts of their children's bodies. I've worked with two male clients
    who were traumatized by their mothers's jokes about the size of their
    penis. Also female clients whose fathers and stepfathers teased them about
    the size of their breasts or buttocks.

    	(b)Boundary Violation - This involves children witnessing parents in
    sexual behavior. They may walk in on it frequently because parents don't
    provide closed and locked doors. It also involves the children being allowed
    no privacy. They are walked in on in the bathroom. They are not taught to
    lock their doors or given permission to lock their doors. Parents need to
    model appropriate nudity, i.e., need to be clothed appropriate after a
    certain age.
    	Children are sexually curious. Beginning at around age three or between
    ages three to six, children start noticing parents' bodies. They are often
    obsessed with nudity. Mom and Dad need to be careful walking around nude
    with young children. If Mom is not being stimulated sexually, the nudity is
    not sexual abuse. She simply is acting in a dysfunctional way. She is not
    setting sexual boundaries.
    	The use of enemas at an early age can also be abusive in a way that
    leads to sexual dysfunction. The enemas can be a body boundary violation.

    4.	Emotional Sexual Abuse

    	Emotional sexual abuse results from crossgenerational bonding. I've
    spoken of enmeshment as a way that children take on the covert needs of a
    family system. It is very ommon for one or both parents in a dysfunctional
    nmarriage to bond inappropriately with one of their children. The parents
    in effet use the child to meet ther emotional needs. This relationship can
    easily become sexualized and romanticized. The dauhter may become Daddy's
    Little Princess, or the son may become Mom's Little Man. In both cases the
    child is being abandoned. The parent is getting his needs met at the expense
    of the child's neeeds. The child needs a parent not a spouse.
    	Pia Mellody, who runs a pioneering co-dependency treatment unit at The
    Meadows in Wickenberg, Arizona, ives the following definition of emotonal
    sexual abuse. She says when "one parent has a relationship with the child
    that is more important than the relationship he has with his spouse,: there
    is emotional sexual abuse.
    	Sometimes both parents emotionally bond with a child. The child tries
    to take care of both parents' feelings. I once worked with a female client
    whose father would come and get her in the middle of the night and put her
    in bed with him in the guest bedroom. He would do this mainy to punish his
    wife for sexually refusing him. The daughter has suffered greatly with
    confused sexual identity.
    Cross-generational bonding can occur with a parent and a child of the same
    sex. A most common form of this in our culture is mother and daughter.
    Mother often has sexualized rage, i.e., she fears and hates men. She uses
    her daughter for her emotional needs and also contaminates her daughter's
    feelings about men. I have had cases where mothers physically sexually
    abuse their daughters
    	The issue is whether the parent is there for the child's needs, rather
    than the child being there for the parent's needs. And while children have
    the capacity to be sexual in a way appropriate to their developmental level,
    whenever an adult is being sexual with a child, sexual abuse is going on.
    	Some sexual abuse also comes from older siblings. Generally sexual
    behavior by same age children is not sexually abusive. The rule of thumb is
    that when a child is experiencing sexual "acting out": at the hands of a
    child three or four years older, it is sexually abusive.

    re: .3 and .5
    
    I was going to ask for clarification on the same point.  The long
    article, which I just finished reading through, seems to say that
    a mother who is naked in front of older children is guilty of a
    form of sexual abuse, if not of actual criminal abuse.
    
    --bonnie

    Was actually not distorting, but indeed asking for a clarification.
    I know us Europeans have a somewhat different opinion about our bodies
    and nudity and this makes it unbelievable that being nude in a family
    atmosphere without sexual intention can be considered child abuse.
    But... I agree, that children *do* have the right to privacy in their
    own rooms or the bathroom.
    
    B.t.w. I'd love to go somewhere else since it's been a long day already
    ;-).
    
    Charles

    
    Comod stuff:
    
    I just don't have it in me to go through a day of breaking up fights.
    Please don't accuse people of things (especially today); ask, and if
    someone asks you to clarify, answer or don't, but please don't
    counter accuse.  Notes that I judge to be too nasty (especially today)
    I will set hidden and/or delete according to womannotes policy.
    Please be nice.
    
    Some of my thoughts on the topic:
    
    I think the nudity part is a little murky.  Different families
    and different cultures have different standards about what's ok.
    I think the key to determining if something is absusive is:
    Is the parent engaging in this behavior to satisfy hir own sexuality
    and/or is the child uncomfortable with the behavior?  I'm not
    comfortable with the suggestion that all adult nudity in front of
    children is bad.
    
    Justine
    
    

    Thanks for clarifying, Herb.  I'm sorry if you thought I was
    trying to change your mind with my wording.  I didn't intend that
    at all. 
    
    My request for clarification was more based on the general issue
    as explained in the article in .4 than on the specific situation
    in .2.  Particularly the idea that nudity and sex have to go on
    not just behind closed doors but behind locked doors in order to
    not be abusive in some sense.
    
    I don't think there's a door in our house, except the outside
    doors, that will lock.  The bathroom has a lock, but it doesn't
    work.  We do close our doors, and nobody opens a closed door
    without knocking and getting permission.  The kids don't come into
    our room and we don't go into theirs. 
    
    The house I grew up in didn't even have inside doors.  I got a
    curtain over my bedroom door when I wanted the privacy to  read
    Westerns and mysteries when I was supposed to be doing my
    homework.  The bathroom has a door but no latch.  But it's rude to
    go in without asking the person who's already there if it's all
    right, and "no" is respected.
    
    We've never tried to hide from the kids the fact that sex is an
    important part of our married life, and that we have lives apart
    from our role as parents.  We don't have sex in front of them, but
    we aren't ashamed of having sex, either. 
    
    I've always thought it was important that my daughter (now 16)
    know that sex, and sexual feelings, are a normal part of a woman's
    life.  She knows that I appreciate an attractive man -- the first
    time the Nelsons' video came on, she called me out of my study
    saying, "There are some guys on the tube that you just HAVE to
    see."  And she also knows that one doesn't need to act on such
    attractions.  She understands that sexual attraction is only one
    aspect of a relationship, and that love involves a lot more than
    just wanting to have one's desires filled.  And it seems that she
    knows that while we can discuss sexual feelings, we don't have to
    and she's entitled to the privacy of her thoughts. 
    
    And I suspect that that's the real issue -- not whether a
    particular action or condition of dress is bad, but whether the
    parent respects the boundaries of the child's personal privacy,
    the child's right to say "No, you can't come in here right now,"
    or "No, that's personal."
    
    --bonnie

    re. -1
    If and please note the *IF*, as you say "the third time" may be a
    problem, numerous psychologists all over the world would be working 48
    hours a day.
    And for what it's worth, who sees who without clothes is completely
    irrelevant.
    
    Charles

    And my re -.1 in .13 should ofcourse be .2.
    
    Charles

    Funny, I tried to reply to .15 and all of a sudden it's gone.
    I did note though, that accidently was in quotes all of a sudden, thus
    implying it is done on purpose, which is somewhat different from first
    time when accidently showing the body was mentioned.
    Well, in this way we can carry on endlessly.
    
    Charles

    And it's there again!
    
    Charles$confused

            <<< MOMCAT::PIGGY:[NOTES$LIBRARY]WOMANNOTES-V3.NOTE;3 >>>
                        -< Topics of Interest to Women >-
================================================================================
Note 55.21      Sexual Abuse of Children Comments and Discussion        21 of 21
TLE::D_CARROLL "Hakuna Matata"                       28 lines  17-OCT-1990 11:37
                      -< I think you know the difference >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    I wasn't confused about the comment about "exposure to adult genitals". 
    To me (disclaimer: I haven't been abused) it seems pretty clear the
    difference between friendly household nudity and abuse through
    exposure.
    
    If you have a house where everyone goes nude, that is not abuse.  if
    you have a house where everyone is clothed, but you pull aside your
    child and force hir to look at your genitals, that is abuse.  If you
    let your towel slip accidentally while walking past your child, that is
    not abuse.  If every time you pass your child you deliberately expose
    yourself, that is abuse.  If you let your child see your body in the
    context of healthy, body-proud family time, that is not abuse.  If you
    make your child look at your body in a context of secrecy, dirtyness or
    lewdness, that is abuse.
    
    If you accidentally step on your child's toe, or accidentally knock hir
    over while working in the kitchen, do you ask yourself "Am I committing
    abuse?"  No, because you, and the child, know that it is accidental.
    
    My family was very touchy-feelie, very physical.  Exactly the same
    touches that occured in my house which were purely innocent *would*
    have been abuse happning in some other houses.  The difference is the
    context...they weren't done lewdly or sexually, I wasn't taught that
    they were secret or bad or to be avoided, and the whole family
    participated.  (Things like cuddling naked in bed...my family are
    nudists.)
    
    D!

    No problem with the subject at all.
    And no hangups either.
    
    Charles

    re: .18
    
    That sounds like the same distinction I was trying to make, only I
    couldn't express it so clearly. 
    
    So I guess what it boils down to is that if one's family is
    already disfunctional, nothing is innocent, and if one's family is
    healthy, very little is damaging.
    
    Which means that the real tragedy of abuse isn't the particular
    thing that was done to the child, though that's bad enough, but
    the destruction of healthy innocence.
    
    Nothing can repair that.
    
    --bonnie

    Yes, healthy people can and do make mistakes . . . and healthy
    families do have problems.  I didn't mean to say otherwise.
    
    I was trying to say not that healthy people don't do unhealthy
    things, but that neutral things, or even healthy things, when done
    in an unhealthy context become unhealthy and damaging.  And that
    the problem lies not in the action or thing itself, but in the
    situation and the people who are doing the action.  
    
    Am I making myself any clearer, or am I just talking circles?
    
    --bonnie

    in some ways this reminds me of arguments about smoking pot: is it the
    first step on the way to heroin addiction?  This was argued over a lot
    in the 60s & 70s.  The argument went, 'most everyone who's addicted to
    heroin got started smoking pot, therefore pot is evil.  The counter-arg
    went, but 99% (made-up stat) of people who smoke pot never go on to harder
    drugs.  You can make the same arguments about social drinking and
    alcoholism -- is *all* drinking evil, then?
    
    I don't question the experiences of victims of abuse: surely, many were
    exposed inappropriately to adult nudity (among other things).  What
    makes me so uneasy is the direct extrapolation, that therefore *any*
    exposure to adult nudity is at least suspect.
    
    It is like saying that since beating a child is clearly abuse, then any
    striking of a child, however minor, is abuse also.  (I gather that this
    is not far from the public perception, and law, in Scandanavia; it is
    certainly not the public perception and law in the U.S.  BOTH outlaw
    the physical abuse of children.)
    
    Is it like trying to define pornography?  ("I can't define it, but I
    know it when I see it"?)

    I'm sorry if I have not been clear.  I'll try to be better.  I'm trying
    to understand where abuse begins, and I guess I don't think there are
    iron-clad boundaries.
    
    in 55.9, the def quoted there included "exposure to adult genitals" or
    very nearly those words.  And your discussions of the after-shower
    scenario seemed to me to say that more than once or twice is abuse,
    because it cannot be accidental more than once or twice.  And if that
    is bad, it seems that it must be because adult nudity in that situation
    is bad by definition.  Have I interpreted you wrong?  (it has happened,
    once or twice!)
    
    I think there is a lot unsaid about the age of the child here. 
    Clearly, if a woman goes nude from the shower to her room in front of a
    15-yr-old boy, this is a mistake (to say the least).  But if the boy is
    only 3, I don't think it is a problem.  When does it become abuse?
    
    If it is only when the child becomes uncomfortable, then how is a
    parent to teach about birth control and sexuality?  In some cultures,
    that teaching must be done by a non-parent; it is taboo between parent
    and child.  In our culture we seem to think it should be done by
    responsible parents.  As a parent, I don't want to give away the
    teaching of values (sexual or otherwise) to anybody -- school, church,
    madison ave, or anybody.
                   

    re .25 More like "children can't define it, but they know it when
    it happens to them", and (if they're lucky) they'll get help after
    the fact and the parent may hear about it some day.  I don't understand
    the apparent fear on the part of good parents.  I have heard situations
    where parents were reported to DSS and it was unjustified (which
    could be devestating), but on the other hand, I see kids getting 
    abused in public, physically anyway, all the time, and nothing happens 
    to them.  Sexual abuse is more likely to happen in private.  There
    seems to be a some resentment on parents' part (acknowledge if this is 
    the case) that someone else is telling them how to raise their child, 
    which I can understand.  But the list Herb printed is not the legal 
    definition.  It is a list of possibilities.  It is probably drawn as 
    broadly as possible to allow survivors to feel validated in labelling 
    their experiences as abuse.  (the lengths a sexual abuse survivor will 
    go to to excuse their perpetrator and blame themselves is truly sad).
    	Linda

    >I think there is a lot unsaid about the age of the child here.
    >Clearly, if a woman goes nude from the shower to her room in front
    >of a 15-yr-old boy, this is a mistake (to say the least).  

    Why?

    I've seen my both my parents fully nude many times since I was 15.
    Neither of them are "practicing" nudists, but neither are they shy
    about their bodies, nor am I shy about seeing them.  What is this
    "clearly" and "to say the least" crap?

    It isn't dependent on age nearly as much as on *circumstance.*  Like I
    said (which does answer your questions, if read it), it isn't the axact
    nature of what happens as the context in which it happens, and how it
    is treated by the parent, the family and society.

    >And your discussions of the after-shower scenario seemed to me to say 
    >that more than once or twice is abuse, because it cannot be accidental 
    >more than once or twice.  And if that is bad, it seems that it must be 
    >because adult nudity in that situation is bad by definition.
     
    Huh?  It is bad if it is deliberate exposure *too* the child, as
    opposed to simple healthy guilt-free nudity.  Adult nudity is not bad
    by definitoin and no one has stated that it is.  

    Sheesh, it's so simple!  There is a world of difference between being
    nude and being lewd.  The person doing the exposing knows *damn* well
    if they are getting sexual thrills from exposing themselves.  And they
    also know damn well if they are doing something "wrong", that is why
    go to great lengths to make sure the child never tells.  If it is done
    in secrecy, *then* it's bad.

    One doesn't sexually abuse "by accident".  If you get your rocks off at
    your kid's expense, it's abuse.  it's that simple.

    D!
         

    
    Linda, for some reason, your first sentence in -.1 reminds me 
    of the saying:
    
    "you don't need to see the burglar to know you've been robbed."
    
    Carla
    

This is an important topic, and it's a sensitive one for many
readers. So please, everyone, be gentle with your questions and your
statements.

Kathy

    In Germany a large majority of people of all ages go nude in the parks, 
    lakes, beaches, saunas, etc. A majority of families also do this 
    together.

    I think a key to this issue is 'when it becomes harmful to the child'.
    Of course we can batt about exactly WHAT is harmful to the child all
    day as we are doing here.  There are some issues (rape) which are
    clearly harmful to the child and that is not a problem getting defined.
    
    As with most things in life there are gray areas.  A towell
    accidentally dropping in front of some kids would be no problem. In
    other families the exact same set of circumstances would produce
    trauma.  Like many things in life one must use 'common sense' to figure
    out whether a certain situation is appropriate.  A good rule of thumb
    I would think is simply "Is ANYONE harmed by the situation". If the 
    answer is yes then its probably abuse.
    
    Many of the people in this string have been abused sexually (as I have)
    and carry alot of strong opinions and stored emotions over it.
    Intensity of emotion doesn't make ones' opinion accurate... Some come
    across as if because they were abused and feel strongly about it that
    whatever they say is FACT. 
    
    I know of few areas which are as prone to misinformation and people who
    live as if whatever THEY think is automatically accurate as topics re-
    garding sexuality.
    
    Be gentle on each other.
    
    Jeff
    
    

re.32

yes, indeed. and a child seeing wall to wall naked people -- or even one naked
person -- isn't sexual abuse.

re. in general

I run the danger of over simplifying here; but 'exposing oneself' does
not equate to 'letting someone see you naked'

There's a difference between a towel that slips and a towel that gets dropped.

Is it really so hard to understand the difference between getting naked and
being naked?  

There are numerous reasons to get naked:
 - practical, it's hot or one needs to change clothes
 - sensible, showering while clothed is usually dumb
 - it's the norm
 - sensual, the list is long 

However, if a child coming into one's range of vision is the _trigger_ to get 
naked, there's probably abuse at work.

Intent _is_ material.

  Annie

    I have no disagreement with .35 and .36; but I do not feel that their
    emphasis on intent, and on the trigger of the behavior, was expressed
    as part of the definition in 55.9, nor in subsequent discussions up to
    this point.  I guess I was not clear enough in how I asked about the
    boundaries of abusive behavior.
    
    I do think that perceived boundaries can vary with mores between even
    families.  I have a friend who is a new dad, his son is 5 or 6 months
    old.  C. told me that he feels very strongly that children should
    never, that's _Never_, see their parents naked, and that his son never
    had nor would.  I don't agree with him, but who says I have to?  I
    don't say he's a prude, and I hope he doesn't say I'm an abuser. 
    Neither statement would be fair or correct.
    
    As well as any non-victim can, I try to understand the pain and horror
    that a survivor must feel.  I am truely trying.  But I cannot allow the
    heightened sensitivity of survivors drive me to a too-fearful response,
    just as I cannot let reported cases of children's abductions make me
    teach my children that all strangers are evil and ill-intentioned.  I
    have to teach them judgement, a much harder task...
    
    Peace to all... Sara

> I have a friend who is a new dad, his son is 5 or 6 months old.  C. told me
> that he feels very strongly that children should never, that's _Never_, see
> their parents naked, and that his son never had nor would.

[Just in case anyone thinks she's talking about me... :-)]

Wow. I'm a new dad, my son is 6 months old. My first initial is "C" but Kai and
I have showered together since he was about four weeks old. He also showers with
Janice, his mother. It's a heck of a lot more convenient.

Am I worried about sexual abuse? You bet. Do I worry that I or my sweetie are
abusing Kai? Well, no, the thought hadn't crossed my mind [till this string!].
(Some) parents do have sexual thoughts about their children. Acting on them
is abuse. Denying that you have them will make you unhappy and cause unecessary
shame. Talking about it with your partner is healthy. Thinking about it,
admitting it, and DEALING with it is important. Denying it is unhealthy. Babies
are sexual creatures from the get go. One of the things parents have to teach
them is *healthy* sexuality. If you spend the child's entire infancy and
childhood repressing any sexual expression anywhere around the child, and you
teach the child that nakedness is bad, that touching yourself is bad, then at
adolescence you start saying things about how natural and wonderful sex is,
well is it any wonder teenagers don't talk to their parents about sex?

Why don't I feel safe talking about this here?

	-- Charles

    thanks charles
    and you don't feel safe because your perfectly reasonable
    statements can be used by someone with an axe to grind to
    decide you aren't a good dad and mom
    
    hugs
    
    bj

    I guess I said this before but I'll say it again.  I don't think
    it is possible to accidentally abuse your children.  I think if
    someone is abusing their children they know it.  IMHO.
    	Linda

    re .38
      Charles, I really like your way of thinking about this.  Sounds
    very healthy to me.  There will always be people who pass judgements,
    and I hope we never see the day where people have their children
    taken away from them because their lifestyles are different.
    Not that yours is.  ;-)
    re .39 Bonnie, I'm a little bothered by the statement "an axe to
    grind", if that is meant to apply to anyone in this string.  I will
    think about that some more though.  As a sexual abuse survivor this
    is a hot topic for me.  Like many other survivors I worry about
    if I have the potential to be abusive.  The thought of it could
    make me feel very desperate.  There is this "common wisdom" that
    abused children go on to become abusers.  But as my therapist told
    me, while it's true that most abusers were abused as children, only 
    a small percentage of abused children go on to be abusers.  (A single
    perpetrator can abuse many children throughout their lifetime).
    If I do have any axe to grind it is only don't discredit our
    experience.
    	Linda

    Linda
    
    My comment was in no way intended for or directed at any sexual
    abuse survivors. I will delete it if you wish, or if you think
    that someone could take it that way.
    
    Bonnie

    That's okay Bonnie, thanks for clarifying.
    	Linda

    The terms abuse survivor and non survivor are new to me.  As an abuse
    survivor myself I wonder how a non survivor is defined?  I assume I am
    a survivor because I am alive and believe I have handled being abused
    successfully.  Jeff
    

    I interpreted it as meaning not a victim who didn't survive but as
    referring to someone like me who never experienced abuse.  
    
    --bonnie

    I define a survivor as a victim of sexual abuse who, despite
    this history, has managed to overcome or circumvent major emotional
    handicaps from that abuse. I see a non-survivor as a victim of
    sexual abuse whose life is handicapped to a significant degree as a
    result of that abuse. 
    
    It is a very fine line, and some people keep crossing back and forth.  
    
    I consider myself a survivor of sexual abuse because:
    
       - I have no significant hangups, sexually or otherwise.
       - I am essentially a happy, optimistic person.
       - I have an excellent marriage that both of us have enjoyed, 
         cherished, and valued highly for 29 years.
       - I have 2 wonderful adult daughters who are happy, well adjusted, 
         and succesful.
       - I do productive work that is satisfying and useful.
    
    What other criteria would you consider?
    
    Bruce
    

    The words survivor and non survivor have been used in this string so
    much that I wanted to be sure what people men when they used the term
    I got tripped up by my semantics regarding survivor/non survivor
    yesterday.  IMO .47 defines it the way I would view it.  BUT if others
    mean non abused as non survivor vs. abused as survivor I think we
    should be clear which we mean... otherwise there are word traps waiting.
    
    Jeff

    Good point, Jeff -- from now on,  I'll be careful to use the
    definitions in .47.
    
    I'm trying to phrase an answer as to why I as a mother react the
    way I do to this issue, which I know is a serious one of great
    concern not only to the victims but also to society in general. 
    I'm sure that, as Herb and D! have pointed out, if you're being
    abused sexually, you know it, and if you're getting a sexual
    thrill from your kids, you know it.  
    
    The problem seems to arise when outsiders need to tell whether
    that's what's going on.  Is what my neighbor is doing the kind of
    thing that should cause me to call whatever agency is in charge of
    protecting children's welfare?  Are the neighbors going to report
    _me_?  What about the friend who's accusing her husband of seuxal
    indecency with their daughter and trying to prevent him from
    seeing the girl again?  He denies it -- but it's been pointed out
    over and over that denial is a major part of incest.
    
    I dunno.  
    
    --bonnie

    A child could suffer child some trauma around the way sexuality is
    expressed in their family.
    
    And the parent could feel that their approach to the subject was
    appropriate.

    In my experiences raising four children and in watching my
    grandchildren being raised I have found that what I might think okay
    based on logic and my personal beliefs can cause trauma.
    
    For instance when the children were young mine and with my
    grandchildren I have always claimed their buns are mine...giving love
    taps and little pinches to the delight and squeals of the wee ones.
    
    To me and to them it was great fun...no one thought it was sexual and
    the child's boundaries were not crossed.
    
    Until...the schools and the media began educating the public and
    children about the areas of their body that are private.
    
    I no longer do this...and Justin and I have had a conversation about
    the very subject after a visit from a policeman to his school 
    discussing a child's right.
    
    It is still hard for him to understand that the fun we shared is not
    appropriate.  Like Charles his Dad has showered with his boys.  Both
    men feel that nudity is natural and the activity is appropriate.
    
    And yet the youngsters are taught in school that it might not be
    especially if in the fun they are accidently touched by the parent.
    
    This is the trauma I am discussing.
    
    And to summarize my experience...althought I might feel something is
    appropriate my children might have some conflict with my teaching once
    they get out and our exposed to other philosophies.

    I find it most disturbing that hysteria in the media, with legislaters
    and social workers is prevailing over common sense, and is forcing
    caring and loving parents to hide their feelings for their children,
    thus depriving them of something which is so much needed.
    My parents were not of the "hugging type" and it wasn't untill I was in
    my teens that I realised I had been missing something.
    What's even more disturbing is the fact that a neighbour or teacher
    could report me for abusing my children sexually because I hug them or
    have a batch or shower with them.
    As an aside, did you people know that if people in Scandinavia lived
    according to those "rules" the whole population would be in jail?
    It's common practice overthere to go to the sauna with the whole
    family, and since it *does* get rather warm in those things, all they
    have on is their skin.
    
    Charles

    I belive we have two issues and the lack of definition between them is
    causing a great deal of grief for many people.... read the last few
    notes.
    
    1. Clear issues of abuse where boundaries are clearly crossed in ALL
       cultures such as rape.
    
    2. Culturally defined boundaries which are ok in SOME cultures but not
       in others. For example, I believe the HEAD is considered private and
       not to be touched in China.  In the U.S. scruffing a kids hair is
       fine, try that in the orient and see if your behavior is appropriate.
    
    In my opinion the prior noter who patted their childs butt in a non
    sexual way is ok IF its ok with the child and does not cause anybody
    mental anguish.
    
    Its sort of like other forms of territory.... some people would
    consider somebody walking across their yard tresspassing, others would
    call the cops. 
    
    The U.S. lately has gone nuts over child abuse... in some cases the
    going nuts over it is way past due... but in others innocent people are
    getting in trouble because of excess hysteria.
    
    Because of the attention given to this topic we are all re-defining
    WHAT IS child abuse but all the boundaries are not black and white.  
    
    I believe that as in all areas of human relationships the gray areas
    must be worked out within individual families. What is appropriate in
    one family may be out of line in another. To put hard and fast rules on
    everybody which say ANY nakedness or ANY touching other than a quick
    hug and kiss is wrong may result in people holding back appropriate
    closeness to their kids.  We will all suffer in the long run if we go
    overboard in the OTHER direction regarding touching our kids.    Jeff 

    I have always strived to teach my children that thier bodies are "OK".
    I always felt uncomfortable changing in the locker rooms at school. I
    did not want my daughter or son to feel this way when they grow up.
    
    I nursed all my children and after haveing three I am no longer
    as modest as I was ten years ago. I am careful about other peoples
    comfort and have compromised by covering -as best as I can- while
    nursing. But in the home I often did not wear a shirt.-Feeding on
    demand sometimes ment feeding then getting dressed then 5 minutes
    later getting undressed to nurse again. I got tired of the moving
    clothes out of the way. 
    
    I still dont try to hide my body. People talk about towels and I
    thought what towel. What is there to hide. If they are not taught it 
    is wrong to be undressed they wont find it difficult to be undressed
    in envionments like gym locker rooms. Teaching them apporopriate 
    behavior in a loving caring envionment is important to me. I do
    believe that people all over the world have different ideas about
    what is right or appropriate. I feel that children, if taught to talk
    about how they feel and that questions are acceptable and expected they
    will ask and ask and develop thier own sence of whats OK for them.
    
    I have always thought the program that talks about a persons
    private parts was only a starting point for me to expound on my
    beliefs and why I have taught her the way I have. I explained 
    how bad I felt about being in the locker rooms in high school and
    how I knew in my mind that thier is nothing to be ashamed of and how
    I always want her to be comfortable with her body where ever she is.
    
    She can chose to wear clothes or not, close the door or not, and she
    can say "stop". I always wanted my children to know that even when they
    are being tickled they can say stop and expect the person tickling to
    stop. I was tickled way past comfort level as a child and have finally
    started to actually enjoy being tickled every once and a while by
    special people. Usually I have a sever addrenaline rush and FEAR shoots
    through me and I just could not understand why I would feel this way.
    
    Later when I relised that I had been tickled to the point where I was 
    crying by someone who really did care for me and was used to roudy 
    boys. I know he did not intend to harm me mentally but its not what
    is done but how it is percieved by the child. I act on the premise that
    if you allow the questions and answer them as honestly as you can you
    can convince a child that "all horses not are bad because one runs so
    fast that you fall off."
    
    I will not hide my feelings from my child. I will cuddle with my
    children and they can chose to wear cloths or not in our home. If I
    percieve that what we are doing is making them uncomfortable and they
    are not telling me about it-Then I would ask why. If they can tell me
    that what I/we are doing is making them uncomfortable I dont need to 
    ask why. I have acompliched what I wanted-I have children that know and
    understand thier comfort levels and will express them to others I will 
    make the changes/compromises to make everyone feel 'OK'. I also
    dont believe that the school system is the best place to teach 
    about "comfort zones" and "private parts" but for some children it
    is thier only sorce of information. So I have compensated by
    supplementing my childrens education with "the rest of the story".
    
    
    As a mother I feel it is what I am suppose to do. I dont what them to 
    feel uncomfortable or ashamed about thier bodies and at the same time
    teach them that they have the right to chose what happens to thier 
    bodies sexually.
    
    Such a hard line to draw and people will overstep thier bounds, some
    by accident and some on purpose. I dont know what to do about that. I
    just know that some cultures have lived for years with minimal or no
    clothing and the children of these cultures dont think twice about 
    it. So we are going to capture and separate all these people because
    they are "abusing thier children". I think not. I believe that the 
    trama of visual exposure is caused by the unusual behavior of the 
    adults involved and the children pick up the "vibs". I believe that
    the trama caused by someone touching a child sexually is caused by 
    someone not listening to the child and how it feels about being 
    touched at that time. I think the empasis in all the programs should
    be on how it makes the child feel and that the child has the right 
    to say"No I dont like when you do that" 
    
    Well I think that about summs up my opinion and how I have tried to
    make my children aware of thier rights as individual sexual beings.
    
    
    Janet
    

    .56 I agree with you completely Janet.  THAT is what I have been trying
    to say.... that how the child feels and perceives along with the right
    to say no is what defines abuse... with different people and different
    situations (the gray areas) the boundaries can be quite different.
    
    An earlier noter said one man he knew believed that it was 'absolutely
    wrong' for a child to EVER see a naked adult'.  I believe that for his
    family that is probably true.... but as a statement of fact for all of
    Society I thinks its' bullxxit.   
    
      Jeff

    see 465.1 (if interested:')

            <<< MOMCAT::PIGGY:[NOTES$LIBRARY]WOMANNOTES-V3.NOTE;3 >>>
                        -< Topics of Interest to Women >-
================================================================================
Note 448.2                    What Is Sexual Abuse?                      2 of 58
VMSSPT::NICHOLS "It ain't easy being green"          26 lines  17-OCT-1990 09:49
                       -< but who knows about bananas? >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    <...Our girl, now 8, has been becoming more aware of modesty and more
    <concerned about who "sees" her, even in the family,
    
    That sure sounds like typical behavior for kids. I don't see a problem.
    
    
    In my opinion what WOULD be abusive would be if one of the adults tried
    to 'force' her to deny her modesty.
    In my opinion -as a layman and father of two young adult girls- this
    would be a parental abuse of power, and since the abuse has sexual
    overtones and is vis a vis a child ...
    
    It would have also be a 'parental abuse of power' in our family to
    force our children to eat lima beans, brussel sprouts or bananas, but I
    don't thing there are any sexual implications:
    
    <...includes the phrase 'exposure to' or 'exposing adult genitals'. 
    <How literally is this to be taken?  If I forget my robe and walk nude
    <from the shower to my room in the presence of my child, is this abuse? 
    
    The first time it's an accident,
    the second time it's probably an accident,
    the third time? 
    think there may be the beginnings of a problem (assuming you folks are
    not naturists/nudists)
    

            <<< MOMCAT::PIGGY:[NOTES$LIBRARY]WOMANNOTES-V3.NOTE;3 >>>
                        -< Topics of Interest to Women >-
================================================================================
Note 448.5                    What Is Sexual Abuse?                      5 of 58
VMSSPT::NICHOLS "It ain't easy being green"          18 lines  17-OCT-1990 10:33
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    re .3
    
    <Are you in all honesty trying to tell that someone who's not a naturist
    <*has* to make sure the body is covered all the time in case a member of
    <the family is around?
    <And if they don't they have a problem?
    
    That isn't what I said. Why do you find it necessary to distort what I
    said?

    in my opinion, yes repeated exposure of parents nudity to opposite sexed
    children is sometimes the beginning of a problem (where naturism/nudism
    is not involved). There is room for other opinions.  My opinion is also
    irrelevant to your note.

    If you can't engage in a civil discussion why don't you go somewhere
    else?
    

            <<< MOMCAT::PIGGY:[NOTES$LIBRARY]WOMANNOTES-V3.NOTE;3 >>>
                        -< Topics of Interest to Women >-
================================================================================
Note 448.7                    What Is Sexual Abuse?                      7 of 58
VMSSPT::NICHOLS "It ain't easy being green"           5 lines  17-OCT-1990 10:43
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    the statements in .3 distorted what I said, and the title of .3 'tried
    to raise the ante'
    
    				herb
    

            <<< MOMCAT::PIGGY:[NOTES$LIBRARY]WOMANNOTES-V3.NOTE;3 >>>
                        -< Topics of Interest to Women >-
================================================================================
Note 448.10                   What Is Sexual Abuse?                     10 of 58
VMSSPT::NICHOLS "It ain't easy being green"          21 lines  17-OCT-1990 10:59
           -< please note: the 'naturists/nudists' are HYPOTHETICAL >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    whether you intended to or not
    
    the statements in three attempted to bring my opinion to somewhere
    different from where it was, and to also make a kind of sarcastic/snide
    editorial comment about 'what the world has come to' based on that
    changed statement.
    
    Furthermore, if you had read .2 more carefully you would understand
    that the 'scenario' included an 8 year old girl expressing interest in
    modesty. If she feels this way, she is entitled to her feelings.
    She is entitled to respect for her feelings, and  
    Under these circumstance I will state (pretty) unequivocally that
    forcing her to behave differently 
    is a violation of her self,
    is a violation of her uniqueness
    and is a sexual abuse of parental power.
    but it ain't rape
    
    I would even venture to SUGGEST that naturists/nudists who have an 8
    year old who is showing a need for modesty, had better recognize that a
    problem may be developing and that that problem needs familial examination.

            <<< MOMCAT::PIGGY:[NOTES$LIBRARY]WOMANNOTES-V3.NOTE;3 >>>
                        -< Topics of Interest to Women >-
================================================================================
Note 448.19                   What Is Sexual Abuse?                     19 of 58
VMSSPT::NICHOLS "It ain't easy being green"           8 lines  17-OCT-1990 12:05
                   -< only wear the shoe if it fits, please >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    re .-1
    and the fact that some seem unable to understand the difference
    between what you -and I- and the article, are saying on the one hand
    and what some folks are 'responding to' on the other hand is yet
    another indication to me that there are a lot of people in the world
    who have trouble with this subject.
    
    			

            <<< MOMCAT::PIGGY:[NOTES$LIBRARY]WOMANNOTES-V3.NOTE;3 >>>
                        -< Topics of Interest to Women >-
================================================================================
Note 448.22                   What Is Sexual Abuse?                     22 of 58
VMSSPT::NICHOLS "It ain't easy being green"          14 lines  17-OCT-1990 12:28
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Bonnie
    
    I largely, mostly, almost completely agree with you
    but.. (my wife says i am a yabit as in yeh, but)
    
    if what you are saying is "by definition
    Healthy people don't do unhealthy things"
    
    and "people who do 'unhealthy' things
    aren't healthy"
    i'm afraid I feel that is a tad simplistic
    
    if for no other reason that -in my opinion- LARGELY/INTRINSICALLY
    healthy people can make mistakes.