This thread is touching on a topic in the book I am writing. I'm going to copy a section from it that may help give a perspective on this controversial and often confusing area. Since the book is in process and not yet submitted to a publisher (and not yet edited), please don't reproduce it.
Ken
Self-destructive/defeating behaviors
Survivors, as you are likely aware, do things to themselves that may perpetuate their unhappiness and hurt those around them. The survivor who has lost self-confidence and isolates himself may fail to realize his potential in life. He may avoid relationships with others, stay in menial employment because his fears and sense of inadequacy keeps him locked in self-imposed exile from life. He may be hurting no one but himself because he cannot get into the game of life. His solitude and misery is not inflicted on others, except perhaps his family of origin who may urge him to get out, explore, or develop friendships and relationships.
A survivor I worked with was a young man who, at age 26, was still living at home. He worked at a job that paid little more than minimum wage with minor benefits. He wanted to move out, go back to college (he had taken a few classes but dropped out), and find a better job. His brother had abused him when he was eight or nine. He was uncertain of his sexual identity, never dated anyone, and had few friends.
It took some time in therapy for him to tell his mother about the abuse. Although he was certain that she would either not believe him or somehow blame him for what his older brother did to him more than 15 years earlier, much to his relief, she believed him and expressed sorrow that this happened.
He did nothing to hurt others. His inability to move on in life was affecting only himself. He did move out after being in therapy for about six months, and although he really couldnt afford the apartment, he felt he had finally accomplished something. His mother, who had been hinting that it was time for him to leave the nest, was grateful for him getting out on his own and making some move towards independence.
There was nothing about his response to the abuse that hurt others. One might argue that he could have done better for himself and perhaps could have made another person happy in a relationship. However, this young man did not wait quietly on the sidelines for much of his life as some older survivors have done. Although he lamented his unfulfilling years in high school and his lost opportunity to attend college with peers, he is determined to continue his healing and become more involved with life while he is relatively young.
In the model of Dantes Inferno, he might occupy the highest ring of Hell. a self-imposed Hell of lost opportunities and years of pain and loneliness.
Another ring of Hell might be reserved for those who hurt themselves. The young man just mentioned did not abuse drugs or alcohol. He was a little overweight and recognized that he used food sometimes to numb his negative thoughts and feelings about his life, but he was not overweight to the point of doing damage to his body.
There are many survivors who abuse alcohol, drugs, food, sex, and other diversions (as described in the section about compensatory behaviors.) Lets look at the person who hurts himself with his actions, ignoring for a moment those whose indulgences hurt others directly or indirectly (such as using the rent money to buy drugs or engaging in risky sexual behaviors that could expose a partner to diseases).
One may argue that the person who drinks or uses drugs alone and doesnt hurt anyone else is not doing anything wrong. This is true but it begs the question about what he is doing to hurt himself. Many believe that our bodies are the temple of the soul and we have a responsibility to care for ourselves. Does overindulgence in food, alcohol, drugs, sex (such as compulsive masturbation, addiction to pornography), or other vices constitute a sin against oneself? In comparison to the person who physically or emotionally hurts another, the person who overindulges as a means of numbing out is less culpable and hurtful in most peoples eyes.
Even in this case, there are consequences to the solitary behavior of this individual. Using drugs, alcohol, or food to excess can impact on others and society as a whole. The drug abuser may be subsidizing international narcotics trafficking and some evidence points out that it helps underwrite worldwide terrorism, corruption, and contributes to oppression of people in the countries that produce drugs. It also raises our taxes (or takes away from productive social programs) to pay for police to arrest and incarcerate users and dealers.
As long as someone does not use alcohol and drugs and get behind the wheel, he does not pose a risk to the general public. However, should he drink/drug and drive, innocent people may be harmed.
In the long run, people who do not take care of themselves wind up sicker and are more likely to be hospitalized for their lifestyles. The person who overeats and develops diabetes or has a heart attack will help raise insurance premiums for those healthier and if they cannot pay for their treatment, we all pay in the end.
Behaviors that affect others
A lower ring of Hell might be reserved for the person indulging in these behaviors where it affects others. The alcoholic or drug abusive/addicted parent may not actually abuse his or her child physically or sexually. There is ample evidence that children who grow up in these homes are emotionally neglected by this kind of parent. The child may find that parent passed out on the couch and unable or unwilling to give the child attention and time. This parent may also use money for the drugs or alcohol that could be used for activities for the child, family vacations, food, or paying for utilities.
The child may also be embarrassed by the parents condition or actions when friends come over. The child who feels he cant bring friends around because of the parents state of intoxication may feel resentment along with the embarrassment. Again, these are primarily self-defeating or self-abusive behaviors that affect the adult but also have an impact on the child or partner.
The partner may be affected by the deceptiveness or co-dependency that the substance abuser creates. This partner may also be subject to the emotional distancing or lack of intimacy from the person abusing substances.
When pornography or sexually compulsive behaviors are involved, the partner may find that the person who numbs out with excessive masturbation has nothing left for him/her. Some survivors use telephone sex or sex chat rooms to gain a sense of control in a world that is not under his control. The partner may find this to be a betrayal of the relationship, even though there may be no actual cheating on a physical level. Since deception is frequently the way sexual addicts and those who use sex as a way of numbing out or experiencing control, the relationship suffers around intimacy.
There are other ways the survivors behavior can have a negative impact on those around him. Any compulsive behavior carries this possibility. What about the compulsive gambler who loses the rent or grocery money? How about the workaholic whose long hours keep him from participating in family life?
Moving to a lower ring of Hell might be the survivor who becomes physically or emotionally abusive to his partner or children. Other behaviors with a direct impact on those around him could be sexual or emotional affairs outside the marriage or relationship. It might also be where the survivor engages in high risk sexual acts with others and may contract a disease that could endanger his partner. In this arena we are looking at those who are abusive, although not in a sexual manner such as sexually abusing a partner, children or others.
Sexually abusive behaviors
As noted before, those who sexually act out in childhood are considered victim-reactive or abuse reactive. Few would say adult survivors who mimicked the behaviors of their abuse in childhood are perpetrators or undeserving of the adult status as survivor. Most people would see a young child mimicking his abuse on other children as still a victim. There is no clear or definitive age where everyone would agree marks the move from being abuse-reactive to the status of child/perpetrator.
However, there are many who will differentiate between adolescents who abused others and those who acted out sexually with children or younger people in their adulthood.
In the federal legislation of 2006 that set up uniform standards for a national sex offender Internet registry, there was some concerns by child advocacy groups that children as young as eight or nine were going to be placed on the website.
This is where the dichotomous thinking runs into problems. Simply saying that if you abused others sexually after puberty or age 18 is grounds for banning you from being considered to be a survivor. The argument here is that we establish arbitrary ages for getting drivers licenses, drinking, voting, and signing contracts. Can we not then just set an arbitrary age for how we look at survivor versus perpetrator status if the person has a history of acting out sexually in childhood or adolescence?
Aside from age differentiation for such a person, can we also look at the level of the persons taking responsibility or rehabilitation?
We can differentiate that some abusers are sorry for what they did, took remedial action, got offense-specific treatment, and somehow dealt with their abuse, versus the abuser who denied, blamed the victim, took it to trial and made the victim testify, refused treatment, or otherwise re-victimized the victim with his refusal to accept responsibility for what he did.
Within the group of those who have sexually abused another, there are distinctions even among these abusers. There is NEVER any excuse for abusing a child. Distinctions do not come from the circumstances (I was drunk, He was curious about my penis, I wasnt getting any sex from his mother, It happened to me, thats why I did it).
Distinctions may be made in terms of the disclosure. Though rare, some abusers turn themselves in without getting caught first. Others may deny at first, minimize the kind of abuse, frequency, use of coercion, or blame the victim. There is a sense of those working in this field that the secondary damage, after the abuse stops, is compounded by denial, minimization and victim-blaming.
In the case of Jake and his uncle Steve, would Steves actions (admitting his responsibility for the abuse, paying for Jakes treatment, going for sex offense-specific treatment, and participating in the confrontation) qualify him as a less detestable perpetrator than someone who denied the abuse or forced the victim to testify in court?
Would Steves own childhood victimization allow him to claim status as a survivor? Likely not, in the eyes of most survivors and therapists, particularly since he committed the abuse as an adult in his 40s. His history of victimization would probably be a treatment issue but likely not the focus of his early therapy.
The abuser who turns himself in, gets appropriate help, works to clean up his mess (that is, taking steps to reduce the damage he has caused) is probably a better person than the one who blames, denies, or otherwise continues to hurt the victim. Obviously, both persons should never have abused another and will be punished and/or possibly sent for rehabilitation.
Perhaps the most severe level of Hell should be reserved for the person who used his position as clergyperson, therapist, physician, teacher or other profession in authority, to abuse a child and continue to deny it. The betrayal of trust from a professional is very serious. Perhaps it could be argued that such behaviors from a trusted parent or caretaker ranks with that of the professional.
The point here is not to design a model of who earns what level of Hell for their behaviors. It is to provide another way to see shades of gray and move away from the dichotomous thinking that many people do.
. Good for both of you!