Posted by Coordinator on March 17, 2004 at 20:40:23
This was a good discussion that I feel got somewhat lost in posts that covered several main issues. So I’m reposting just the parts about reconciliation in case others are interested in discussing this aspect further. Jules did ask, “This is an honest question and I am curious to hear what people think, but why do we need to reconcile?”
So here are the posts. Annovagrl wrote:
I also urge SGAs involved in the Name Them & Shame Them project to provide a mechanism for the accused perpetrators to respond to the allegation of abuse. Victims who name their perpetrators should make it clear whether or not they are open to contact from the offender if s/he is interested in seeking forgiveness and/or making an amends. Corroborating witnesses—often brothers, sisters, and lifelong friends—may feel that the only suitable justice is public shaming and/or a lawsuit.
Nevertheless, I believe it is the responsibility of the victim to decide whether or not forgiveness and/or reconciliation is an option. If it is not, victims should not be judged as being “unforgiving” or “vindictive” people. Until you have stood in the victim’s shoes, you cannot know what it would take to amend the damage. Only the victim can determine whether forgiveness and/or reconciliation is an appropriate response to the perpetrator and the crime.
If the victim’s perpetrator is, in fact, a sexual predator and not simply a mind-controlled cult zombie under situational stress who acted in a despicable manner, then true reconciliation is not possible and forgiveness can be socially irresponsible.
Reconciliation implies a change has taken place in the offender. Forgiveness implies that whether or not the offender has changed and/or expressed appropriate sorrow for his/her crimes, the victim has no desire to seek retribution.
Sexual predators DO NOT and CANNOT change without a great deal of external pressure, i.e., prison, treatment, and/or behavioral contracts under the supervision of a parole or probation officer. Victims can forgive them time and again, and they will continue to prey on vulnerable children. For sexual predators, forgiveness is just another “green light” that allows them to continue violating children without consequence.
Jules replied:
The third thing is that I am personally very doubtful as to whether those aggressively campaigning for “reconciliation”, both in and out of the Family, between abusers and victims, actually have the victim’s best interests at heart. IMO, to confront your own abuser is one of the most difficult things to do, let alone to do it privately and alone. Someone was telling me about a CBS show that was on the other day about the film “Searching for Angela Shelton”. It’s about a young woman who travels around the US looking for women that share her name. 50% of her namesakes were abused as children and through her journey she comes to terms with her own abuse. She decides to confront her father and while she had planned to scream and yell and let him know how much he devastated her life, instead when she is there, faced with him, she reverts back to that ashamed and terrified little girl she was. I have experienced this myself, and it’s a horrible feeling. These people bullied and dominated us for years. They broke us down and systematically destroyed our self worth and self esteem. They are experts in manipulation and know exactly which buttons to push and how to push them. The recent writings from Karen Zerby echo exactly the same type of manipulative condescension we have heard most of our lives. Personally I have tried to confront many of my demons, but I still experience overwhelming panic when I am in a closed room with someone who has the language, mannerisms and vocabulary of a first generation Family member. If someone who had hurt me sought me out, I can’t think of how that could be a good experience for me at all. I don’t want them to feel better about what they did.
This is an honest question and I am curious to hear what people think, but why do we need to reconcile? I have no idea if reconciling with an abuser is an accepted (non-religious) therapeutic practice but it sounds very suspect to me. Sometimes I think that there is still a mentality of people who were in the Family being some sort of unit or friends with each other when that may not really be case. We have friends that we do make now and other friendships that have persisted through the years of being in and now out of the group, but I don’t personally think that it’s appropriate to give someone special consideration just because we were both once in the Family. I had some very unpleasant experiences after leaving the Family as well. If I were to ever write a tell-all book, it is likely that certain well known people (or their lawyers) would try to track me down and “reconcile”. I however never ever want to have to interact with these people ever again. I don’t see what the difference is. If the victims feel differently, then I respect their decisions, but I will not support any private interactions between abusers and victims unless specifically initiated by the victim, and with adequate support available for them.
I guess when you have spent your childhood being abused and then it is demanded that you keep silent and even lie to protect the people who had exploited you, you don’t really trust these people to have any of your best interests at heart. I wonder if anyone would be looking to reconcile if we had not named names and Daniel was not now collecting affidavits?
Annovagrl responded:
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.
---------------------
Any further comments?