Posted by anovagrrl on March 16, 2004 at 10:47:32
In Reply to: Re: False Memories, Naming & Shaming, and the Reconciliation Option posted by Jules on March 16, 2004 at 05:47:58:
Thank you for your thoughtful response. You make several excellent points.
I began the discussion with the "false memory syndrome" fiasco, because many innocent people were prosecuted or otherwise had their lives destroyed in the early 1990s due to a premature rush to judgement. It gave me a convenient jumping off point from which to talk about the importance of corroboration.
"Social contagion" is an important concept that I gave limited elaboration. People can and do make allegations of childhood sexual abuse because they get swept up in a social dynamic that promotes a faulty interpretation of past events or a distortion of memory. I do not believe this is the case with SGAs who make the allegation of childhood sexual abuse, but it is important to talk about, because this is exactly the sort of argument apologists for The Family will make. Once again, I wanted a jumping off point to talk about the importance of corroboration.
Simply put, corroboration is the only way to tell the difference between a true or false allegation of sexual abuse that is based on an adult memory of a childhood experience.
Your point about respecting the fact that the victim may not want or need to be confronted by his/her perpetrator is right on target. Perhaps I could have said this myself, but it is much more powerful, credible, and situation-specific coming from a survivor such as yourself. I was never able to directly confront my own perpetrator with the accusation of abuse; however, I did eventually forgive.
First, my own abuse history doesn't begin to approximate the ritualized, cultic devastation described by exFamily SGAs. Second, it took me 25 years to reach the point where I understood the perpetrator (a close family member) well enough to conclude that s/he would never, under any circumstances, comprehend the damage done. There were times earlier in my life when it might have helped if the perpetrator had attempted to apologize or make amends. On the other hand, it very well might have freaked me out to be confronted that way. Regardless of what COULD have been, I was never given the choice.
In the end, I decided to forgive because I chose to keep this person as part of my life. Your point that former Family associations should not be expected to carry over into meaningful, lifelong relationships is well taken. I chose to forgave for my own peace of mind and emotional well-being after deciding that I did not want a total cutoff in the relationship.
This brings me to one of the most significant issues you raised. The victim may not have any need or desire to reconcile with his/her abuser. As long as the victim feels no need or desire for this, forcing the issue is basically a way of revictimizing that person. Telling the victim she "should" feel the need or desire for reconciliation is like telling her that she "should" have enjoyed the original molestation or rape.
Only the victim can decide for herself what she needs and wants in order to recover and get on with life. What the perpetrator wants and needs is irrelevant. Nevertheless, if the offender wants to apologize or make an amends, the victim should at least be made aware that s/he has the option.
If the victim DOES feel a need or desire to forgive or reconcile, it is not a process that can be forced and there is no simple formula for making it happen. For me it has taken close to a lifetime. My perpetrator never confronted me and asked me to forgive or accept an amends. I chose to walk down that path because I felt the need to go there for some very personal reasons.
I do not believe that I am "more recovered and healed" or a better person than someone who does not feel the need for reconciliation or forgiveness. Everyone's situation is different and unique. Regardless of what some people believe, there is no blueprint that fits every life's design.