NOMSV

Status
Not open for further replies.
NOMSV
F

factsperson

Registrant
Ken Singer,

First I would like to thank you for speaking up and showing integrity in discussing these matters. You have been forthright and open about yourself and you have volunteered this information.

You ask me what my "beef" is? I do not exactly have a "beef", I feel that the things I have been expressing are topics that should have been expressed and discussed by all people associated with NOMSV all along.

I feel that the topic of whether or not NOMSV represents (if that is the appropriate word) perpretrators or not is a MAJOR issue for NOMSV that should have been brought out in the open all along.

I simply rather accidently discovered that several of the therapists with postings on this website treat offenders, not just yourself. Again, I believe that you're coming out is rather to be admired for you are the only one so far who has done that. That gives me the strong impression that you are honest about what you say about yourself.

The issue is, once again, I feel that NOMSV therapists should not be treating perpetrators and victimes at the same time. As an example that I am not alone in this, Dr. Susan Forward in her book Betrayal of Innocence indicated that her patients asked her not to treat abusers which she honored and she has never been sorry that she chose that path. So here we have a very well known abuse therapist known world wide who does not do this. That, by itself, makes my statement reasonable.

My "beef:: A lot of the responses by honored members of this website indicated a belief that many of the abusers were abused themselves. I have never seen any firm statistics on this however based on what I have read this is not true. If the present President of NOMSV woould like to comment on that, that would be appreciated.

So, from the mail so far, several people might apparently change their minds if they knew that this was not true.

Secondly, how does a therapist who treat abusers get the abuser to stop abusing other people which a lot of NOMSV posters indicted was important in allowing therapists to treat abusers. Certainly the way it is done is the same way that therapists treat victims, with empathy, concern, warmth, support etc. I feel that all NOMSV members should be aware of that and let them make a decision how they feel about abusers being treated the same way that they (victims) are being treated in therapy.

My points are :

1. I would have never thought that there were therapists in NOMSV (other than Mr. Singer) who even treated abusers.

2. I never knew that NOMSV had a policy that abusers were allowed to use the NOMSV web site as long as they would not talk about the abuse until someone in a posting said that.

3. It is my belief that many of the MOMSV members or people who just post at this site are aware of these facts.

THe purpose of this posting is not to "divide" members, the purpose of this posting is to bring out into the open these topics so that all NOMSV members can realize them and to allow NOMSV to explain their policies so that people can decide for themselves how they feel about that and to let NOMSV know how their constituents feel about this.

It should be brought out into the open.

Of course you could always just tell people that this is the way it is but at least they would know that and can decide that how they feel.

When you attend a NOMSV Conference which are always excellent and very helpful to victims NEVER would anyone get the impression that abusers are being treated by NOMSV therapists and personnel.
 
I feel that factperson has raised some topics for discussion even though her/his presentation may not be that good at times.

I don't agree with freevoice that factperson is indicating that therapists are condoning what the offender did however it would be informative to understand what the treatment of an offender is.

I am sure that NOMSV will be able to handle themselves well on these points but I believe that they are topics and questions reasonable enough to answer.
 
FreeVoice,

I first read all the other postings to mine and all of them were supportive in their disagreeing with me and concurred in part with what I had to say.

However yours does not have the same tone. You totally disagree with me always and even go so far as to criticize me in my expressing myself on this matter.

I have noticed that your postings are slanted, that is, you find no value in what I am saying and you want me to "go away".

Why don't you be a man and come out and tell everyone that you are a perpetrator?

I have not heard from the ex-President and the present President on my concerns and questions. I assume it will be forthcoming.

Thank you.
 
Factsperson,

Your accusation that "freevoice" is a perpetrator implies that you think anyone who is in disagreement with you is a perpetrator. That is so small minded as to not even warrant a response.

Frankly, it is none of your business what the issues are of the other clients your therapist or any of the therapists at NOMSV happen to see. Personally, I wouldn't care if my therapist treated Charles Manson as long as he/she was skilled, compassionate, and attentive to my needs.

I replied to an earlier post of yours and there is no way anyone could misread my response as being supportive of your actions here. Nor did I then or do I now concur in any way, shape, or form with what you have to say. Let me be the first to go on record as saying I find no value in what you are saying and that I want you to go away.
 
Mr. Ken Singer,

You asked me what my beef was and I told you. So far I have not heard from you or the President of NOMSV presently to some well thought out questions.

Is it that you had no plans to answer or letting a couple of people who don't agree with me and attack me for raising these issues do your answering for you?

Oh, if it is true that perptrators are alloed into the discusion group as long as they don't talk about the abuse, this is also not a good idea as they are sadistic and will gt into the pain and anguish of victims (you should know that Mr. Singer).
 
A Discussion Forum is set up so that people may read and answer posts in their own time. I did not see this particular thread till today, and that is why I am only answering it now. By and large, I and others on the NOMSV Board have always tried to give this Forum over to members for Discussion, only coming in ourselves when we felt there was a need. This is why most of the responses about this issue have come from survivor/members.

First, as to factsperson's question about statistics related to perpetrators having been abused themselves:

I believe one of the best research studies of the prevalence and incidence of sexual abuse of boys is one done by David Lisak and his colleagues at the University of Massachusetts-Boston. There is a published study from 1996 listed in the professional bibliography on this web site (Lisak, Hopper, and Song), but Dr. Lisak has continued to collect data. The published study had 600 subjects but he now has data on over 3000 subjects which tend to confirm the earlier numbers. He presented some of the data at NOMSVs New York conference in 2001.

I will summarize some of his most important findings. I have tried to simplify the findings in the interest of clarity. If you want more details, please go to his study, or to my description of it in Betrayed as Boys: Psychodynamic Treatment of Sexually Abused Men.

About the prevalence of sexual abuse of boys:

The researchers surveyed nearly 600 college men. Of the men in their sample, 18 percent (nearly one in five) reported direct sexual abuse by the age of sixteen. When non-contact abuse was included, the figure rose to 28 percent (about one in four).

The average age of the first sexual abuse incident was 10.1 years, with a range from 2 to 15 years for the age of first victimization.

The use of force, intimidation, or threats was reported by 36 percent of the sexually abused men, while 43 percent reported more covert seduction and 22 percent claimed that they had participated voluntarily.

61 percent of the sexual abusers were male and 28 percent were female. Eleven percent of those who were sexually abused reporting having both male and female abusers.

Extrafamilial abuse was involved for 79 percent of the sexually abused men.

About abusers having been sexually abused themselves:

The researchers found that, contrary to popular opinion, most sexually abused men do not become victimizers. A significant minority of sexually abused men do indeed become perpetrators of abuse, however:

In Lisaks sample, 23 percent of the men acknowledged being perpetrators of abuse. The average age of the first incident of being an abuser was 17.0 . This is probably an underestimate of the number of abusers in the general population because the sample was relatively young. Presumably, the percentage of victimizers rises with an older population, as many men may victimize for the first time at a later age.

Of the abusive men, 79 percent had themselves been abused as children. However, when the researchers looked at the men who were themselves abused as children, only 19 percent later went on to abuse children. Thus, for this group of men still in young adulthood, although four out of five abusers had themselves been abused, only one out of five abused children had later become abusive.

Second, I want to respond briefly about treating abusers. NOMSV does not represent abusers. Part of our mission, however, is to eliminate and prevent sexual abuse. This includes trying develop ways to work with abusers to stop further abuse.

While I myself have rarely treated an abuser, I agree with Ken Singer that abusers should be treated if possible. That does NOT mean being accepting of their abusive behavior. In fact, good therapists who work with abusers are pretty no-nonsense in their approach to abuse and in particular do not accept abusers rationalizations or minimalizations of their crimes.

This does not mean that they cannot be more empathic and understanding when treating a non-abusing victim or when working with an abuser on issues related to his or her own victimization. Therapists do not necessarily have the same stance with all patients (or even with the same patient at all times), whether or not abuse is even an issue in the treatment. Psychotherapy is not a one-size-fits-all product!

RIchard Gartner
NOMSV President
 
I want to ask a question. If a perpatrator wishes to change, he probably will not be able to do it alone. If you do not think people can change, then i do not know why you are here. How can they find help if everyone turns them away?

I can certainly understand the frustration, watching child molesters constantly slapped on the wrist, getting away with "mandatory" therapy, seeing them victomize other survivors who are vulnrable through support groups and other means, but what do you want to do? Do you want to explain to an abused child that thier father is a pedophile, and that all those bad things he did to them means he has to die? Try explaining that pedophiles are nothing but animals to thier wives and children. It is a choice, yes, but it is also a sickness. If we deny the choice and treat the sickness, there is no justice. If we accept the choice but deny the sickness, there is no mercy. You do not get the luxory of accepting either compassion or justice as the one virtue you choose over the other. If you want it to be clearly posted that offenders are permitted on the boards, that is fine. But to be honest there is very little NOSMV could do to keep out offenders if they tried. There are a few people i suspect here are offenders who are only here to take advantage, but there are others i think are trying to change. But there is no way for me to prove who i suspect are currently active or stop them from coming here, or tell the difference between the two. 99% of the time, your probably right, they probably are out to get you. But that doesnt change the fact that you are denying victoms of sexual abuse a chance to be heard, or that you are turning away what may be the only shot to keep an offender from contining to abuse others. Offenders are often family, who could not break the cycle themselves. Some offenders may have been extremely young and confused when they started, it is not excusable, but it is hardly reasonable to throw a five year child in jail because he has molested one of his younger siblings. Reality is not black and white.
 
Factsperson:
I just came back last night from the Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers annual conference in Montreal, so I apologize for not responding to your posting until today.

You make a number of assumptions regarding the treatment of abusers and the role of NOMSV in it. First of all, NOMSV/MaleSurvivor is primarily dedicated to the healing of male survivors of sexual abuse. When I (or any other member) talk about working with abusers, it is about preventing more victims. I assume you are supportive of this goal.

When you say, "I feel that the topic of whether or not NOMSV represents (if that is the appropriate word) perpretrators or not is a MAJOR issue for NOMSV that should have been brought out in the open all along", I have difficulty understanding what you mean by this. We do not give perpetrators a forum here, either directly or indirectly. This discussion area is for survivors, therapists who work with them, and those who love/support them. If someone who identifies as a survivor happens to have a history of abusing others, it is his choice whether to reveal that or not. We have no way to identify or exclude them on this ground. We will ban some individuals who are abusive to others in their writings upon our moderators' discretion.

I have respect for Dr. Susan Forward's work as an early pioneer of sexual abuse/incest more than 20 years ago. However, if it was true that she decided to not see abusers out of her patients' preference, that is her decision. My clients know I see both abusers and survivors and I have never had anyone ask this of me. Each person who I see gets the respect and time they pay for, regardless of their "status" as an "abuser" or "survivor": each person is a person to me, regardless of what label someone might put on them. I will do my best to help them.

The issue you raise about the numbers of abusers who were themselves abused has been documented in the research time and again. Why some victims become victimizers and most don't is important, but should not play a role in what is going on here. While I believe that it is important to treat the victimization issues for abusers, your healing should be independent of theirs. Everyone in the abuser treatment field agrees that this is important to treatment for abusers. To not address their victimization issues raises the possibility of more offenses/more victims.

If you want statistics on this, I will get them for you, but I suspect this is a diversion from your agenda.

Your last comment needs to be addressed. You wrote:
"When you attend a NOMSV Conference which are always excellent and very helpful to victims NEVER would anyone get the impression that abusers are being treated by NOMSV therapists and personnel."

I wonder... have YOU attended a NOMSV conference (when and where)? What difference does it mean about the therapists (presenters?) who treat abusers and survivors? Again, I am in the small minority (perhaps the only one) who does work with both populations. I'll be interested if you attended any of my workshops in the past whether you saw a difference in my presentation because of who I work with.

Looking forward to your reply.

Ken Singer, LCSW
NOMSV past president
Current board member NOMSV
NJ ATSA Executive Director
Board Member, Child Assault Prevention-NJ
 
And PS:
Is this the right discussion place for this topic? Perhaps it should be moved to the Board discussion or someplace else?
Ken
 
Mr. Singer,

Thank you for your response.

Yes, I would be interested in the statistics that you mentioned, I don't understand why you would think this would be a diversion from my agenda, I do not have any agenda, I am just voicing my opinion.

I don't understand why whether or not I attended a NOMSV convention matters since I highly praised the convention. (I did not say that NOMSV represented abusers at the convention.) Also I don't understand why you state whether or not is is true that Susan Forward no longer treats abusers as I mentioned the book where she states this in the beginning. I admit that the vast majority of the people are probably not going to check it themselves but it is there.

The reason why I talked about what I did in my postings is because one of the responses to them indicated that NOMSV had a policy that abusers were allowed to use the NOMSV web site as long as they would not talk about the abuse until someone in a posting said that. Is that true? (Am I allowed to ask?)

Certainly perpetrators who are abused themselves should be able to use the NOMSV website if they are trying to change. However, as Dr. Gartner indicated, the vast majority of offenders were not abused themselves. I guess this is the group that concerns me using the website. However there is no control over this. I am sorry if you feel I do not have the right to offer my opinion on this.

I have received e-mail from the Board saying I am being disruptive in my postings. I wrote back to them and asked them what it was that I said that was disruptive so I can modify my postings in the future. I have not received a response to date.

I get the impression that if someone disagrees with the Boards policy, for example, on the topic of abusers, that this person is "disruptive".

I don't understand this as any victim would naturally ask a question like this, it is perfectly normal and expectable for a victim to react this way. It is perfectly normal and natural for a person who was abused and sees there life affected by this in a myriad of ways would at least WONDER why some NOMSV people would treat abusers especially if they are not in the field itself or on the board or a moderatorand has no knowledge that this is the policy.

Mr. Singer, you said that my postings are dividing
the membership. How are they dividing the membership? The only way that they could divide the membership is if some members feel that NOMSV should not being treating abusers or that abusers should not be allowed on the website, this is the only way that members could be divided, not on what I believe. And what is wrong with that, are you not interested in what your constituency feels and thinks as you represent them? If it divides the membership then it is the message, not the messenger.

Again, why not put to a vote whether members want NOMSV to treat abusers or whatever? The issue here is not only the treatment of abusers (most of them have not been abused themselves) but who sets the guidelines for NOMSV policy. Should it be the Board or the vast thousands of members? I think it should be both, if the majority agree with NOMSV, then let it be for this is the way it should be.

If you want to find me "disruptive" and remove my ability to offer opinions then let it be.

I find it mind boggling that I am being "disruptive" because I, as an abuse survivor, question treatment of abusers(did you want to ask me if I was actually abused?). I guess I have worked thru enough issues to reach the point that I can question "authority" and decide what is good for me, not automatically identify with the victimizer or minimize my importance as a human being and immediately agree with whatever the person "in charge" wants. Actually I should be commended for my courage to question with the Board or possibly disagree with the Board. I also feel that I have expressed myself in a respectful manner.

If you feel that this topic should not longer be posted here and be discussed only by the Board then let it be. I will respect that decision.
 
Factsperson:
I will address your points. First of all, you misquote Richard Gartner. You wrote: "However, as Dr. Gartner indicated, the vast majority of offenders were not abused themselves."

He actually wrote: "Of the abusive men, 79 percent had themselves been abused as children. However, when the researchers looked at the men who were themselves abused as children, only 19 percent later went on to abuse children. Thus, for this group of men still in young adulthood, although four out of five abusers had themselves been abused, only one out of five abused children had later become abusive." This figure is representative of the various studies that look at victimization histories of abusers. 79% is significant and typical.

You earlier praised NOMSV conferences (which is why I asked whether you had actually attended any, or if you had perhaps attended a workshop I did that talked about abusers. I've done workshops on survivor healing as well as abuser treatment over the years.) You skirt around the issue and don't answer the question I raised. This is about your credibility, not about banning you or preventing your voice from being heard. You are entitled to your opinion and you sound like an intelligent person. However, you rely on innuendo which is presented in a "factual" manner.

It appears that your agenda is about whether NOMSV professional members should treat abusers or not. That theme come in through a number of your posts. Read through them. From the first one: "I feel that the National Organization on Male Sexual Victimization should be exclusively for males who are victims or surviviors. Yet, understand that at least several of the the therapists who are associated with NOMSV treat perpertrators or offenders or abusers.I feel that this is incompatible with what NOMSV should be about, an organization that helps/represents victims or survivors. By having therapists associated with NOMSV, and part of NOMSV, treating abusers it takes away from the pain and anguish and loss of personal life and freedom and financial problems that the victims have as the result of abuse."

To your most recent one:"Again, why not put to a vote whether members want NOMSV to treat abusers or whatever? The issue here is not only the treatment of abusers (most of them have not been abused themselves) but who sets the guidelines for NOMSV policy. Should it be the Board or the vast thousands of members? I think it should be both, if the majority agree with NOMSV, then let it be for this is the way it should be."

NOMSV is not made up of "vast thousands". There are but 100+ dues paying members and another 900 individuals who signed up for the free discussion forum which you are now reading.

What I do as a therapist is not up for a vote. I am accountable to my state licensure board, my clients, my membership in professional organizations, and my conscience. Perhaps you are opposed to treating the "enemy" is like a surgeon helping a wounded soldier or civilian on the other side.

In any event, you raise the question of whether you are being divisive in your questions and comments.

Read the comments from your fellow survivors. I see little support for your positions.

Ken Singer
 
This is an interesting thread, and if I may be allowed to put my two cents in.

I am sorry to say Mr. Factsperson, that I disagree with your point of view. First off...your asking to ask everyone about this, I think that is an unreasonable request to say the least because many people only come every few days/weeks/months. A cursory look at the posts though would suggest an overwhelming, general satisfaction with the site.

Second, and more importantly, while I am not 100% certain of this board's mission and all that minutia, as an abused person, I frankly could care less that this board also has abusers or people who treat both abused and perpetrators. I doubt that every abused person here reads every thread. Based on my own experience, abused people will post something and simply get responses (and from what I have seen from responses to my own posts, they have always been helpful advice regardless of where they have been from). Besides, I almost expect that there may be some perpetrators on here and therapists that treat both abused and abusers. In fact, I am actually somewhat comforted that at least there would be somewhere for abusers to turn.

Maybe I am naive and foolishly optimistic, but I am a firm believer that EVERYONE is truly the same at the core with a human dignity that deserves respect and help--even my abuser. I do not believe that anyone is born a killer or perpetrator of abuse. As such, what they need is counsel and help rather than to be further ostracized (and eventually abuse again never having dealt with their issues).

Let me put it another way...Okay we have abused persons and we have people who have abused others. We have a tool here via the internet that tries to help abused persons regardless of whatever their history is. How do you plan on resolving this larger issue of keeping the numbers of abused persons down?

What do you propose, keeping abused persons out? How would you even know which people do that? Besides, do you not think perpetrators would find a way to get in (if anything you would probably accidentally get those who are legitimate abused persons who are not perpetrators out--since perpetrators became "perpetrators" because they are good at manipulation and deceit).

Also, your suggestion of keeping people who treat perpetrators out is also missing the point of this being a volunteer organization--you take what help you can. Besides, I do not think it would make any sense for a person treating "regular abused" persons to now have to REFUSE to treat "perpetrators" if they want to continue helping "regular abused" persons (which is one of many ramifications that your suggestion has). In this case, I think it may actually help even as then the therapist knows how the abuser works and can help the "regular abused" person strategies to prevent relapsing into another abusive relationship.

Hmmm...excused my babbling there, but I hope it made sense (I have to run)...BOTTOM LINE: keep this site as is.
 
Ken: Good reply, but you did not go far enough. I have avoided responding to Factsperson again, because he twists replies and uses words to obscure his meaning. He also reminds me of advertisers for crappy movies, who butcher reviews to make it seem that these wastes of film have any value at all.

Factsperson: You started by suggesting that any therapist who treated abusers should not be a member of NOMSV. You did not say that "they should be thrown out of NOMSV", but that was the logical outcome of your request and desire.

There have been three replies from those who treat abusers and/or are (or were) Board members, not one as you stated; Ken Singer, Fred Tolson, and Richard Gartner.

There have also been numerous replies from Survivors of abuse who do not agree with you. But still, you come back with the same message, wrapped in new words, or the same old words, rearranged.

This is the message I get from your words:

F*ck abusers.
They don't deserve treatment or any consideration whatever.
If anything, they deserve great pain and death, nothing more.

I can understand that message. I'm sure many reading this understand it as well; have felt it and nourished it and fantasized about it.

But I think it is obvious from the replies you have received that for the most part, we have rejected this message. Perhaps we have just moved past it.

Or perhaps it is more than that. Maybe we realize that to wallow in such thoughts is to be little better than a perpetrator, in the broadest sense of that word. We reject the concept of "Eye for an eye". This is not to say we will "turn the other cheek", or that we do not support punishment and accountability for perpetrators.

If you would truly "listen" to what has been written in response to you, you would see this. But you do not. You hang on to your message, your single idea, whatever it truly is, and keep trying to get validation for it. By doing this, you minimize, if not completely devalue what we are saying to you.

If you can, Factsperson, drop the rhetoric, forget everything in these posts, and tell us exactly what you want to say; without asking for agreement or a vote; without a hope of convincing everyone you are right.

If you cannot, then perhaps this site is not for you. I wish you luck in finding some peace, and an organization (and site) which is more to your liking and needs.

Respectfully,
Donald
 
The contributions of ABCD & others in this thread have been very helpful & thot provoking. And worth a lot more than two cents!

Above all, I agree, ABCD, that "EVERYONE is truly the same at the core with a human dignity that deserves respect and help--even my abuser. I do not believe that anyone is born a killer or perpetrator of abuse." (And if they were, how could we blame them for being born that way?)

Of course we know this does not justify perps for their abuses. But this isn't about justification or excusing anyone or anything.

NOMSV seems to be all about doing what is best for male survivors. We certainly don't want perps abusing us, or anyone, ever again.

It seems to me that its in the best interests of male survivors, and others who could become male survivors, that perps have some good place to come for healing.

Of course it could be argued that a place just for perps would be better. Don't know if I agree with that or not.

What I do know is it would be very hard to set up such a place, to fund it, & to get perps into it.

I also know it would be very hard to keep perps, and those who treat them, off this site--obviously. We know there are people who treat perps here. It's highly probable there are also perps here, even if they are probably (hopefully) now no longer abusing and are seeking help.

Isn't it in our best interests to let them get that help? Before they abuse again, maybe more & more horribly than ever?

No this is not a guilt trip. We weren't responsible for their abuse then, nor are we now or in the future. I don't think this is something we are compelled to do as survivors, or as an organization. It's not even something I'm sure we should or even could do. I'm just not sure we couldn't, and shouldn't, either.

I want to be extremely careful here, in lots of ways. I don't want perps coming here ruining this site by manipulating & preying on us. None of us do. It would be very easy for me to say no way I don't want them here for any reason ever period.

But as we've indicated, they are here. They are some of us, meaning all the people who come to this site as a whole; I know & am implying nothing about members, paying or otherwise.

But some of "us", the community of this site, who have posted some very helpful things, may be recovering perps, or even people very close to becoming perps. I'm grateful for that help tho not their abusiveness, which is unknown to me, and probably to all or most of us, anyway.

I'm also glad they're taking time here to get help, time they could well be perpetrating abuse instead, especially without help & support.

Personally, I wouldn't dare to say I could never sexually abuse anybody in any circumstances. Given enuf pain motivation, who knows? Get picky enuf & it could arguably be said I already have, if unintentionally. Now, my revulsion at the thot of sexual abuse makes that taboo to me. But I know that in my life I have at times abused or mistreated or hurt others in different ways. Unintentionally? Usually. Out of my own pain? Yes.

But I suspect that's where most abuse comes from, at least in the beginning. Out of pain. So again, if we can help them ease their pain, and the chances they will abuse again, isn't that something we should at least think about? Since they are here anyway, and will be hard to even spot much less remove and keep out?

On the other hand, I suspect most of us are not perps by the usual definitions, not currently, probably in most cases not ever. How much perps on the site might hurt us, and may have already, must also be considered. How much can we as survivors handle?

Maybe I seem wishy washy here. As usual, I have a lot more questions than answers. What I'm trying to do, at least for my own benefit, is write out my thinking in order to clarify it. I hope it may help some of the rest of us as well.

The point is, there are already perps here & we are doubtless already helping them, and in my opinion thus helping ourselves. Why not continue doing this? Doubtless we will anyway. Perps will continue to come here and they will continue to find help, and perpetrate less I think. Becuz we are a group of helpful supportive people. And this is a good organization with good monitoring & protection of anonymity.

Nobody wants or is talking about advertising
"perps welcome" or having a "perp membership drive"! I'm sure at least most of the perps or potential perps here are genuinely survivors of abuse seeking help, and finding it.

In my opinion, as long as there's good monitoring & we all take care, that's a good thing.

There's my two cents, or whatever its worth!

Wuame
 
Dear Factsperson:

As Ken Singer has said, you completely misunderstand what I wrote about offenders having themselves been abused when you write:

"Certainly perpetrators who are abused themselves should be able to use the NOMSV website if they are trying to change. However, as Dr. Gartner indicated, the vast majority of offenders were not abused themselves. I guess this is the group that concerns me using the website."

I don't necessarily question your sincerity about this topic, but it seems to me that if you can get to this conclusion from what I actually wrote ("four out of five abusers had themselves been abused"), then you are indeed promoting an agenda, whether you realize it ot not. And you are promoting it hard enough to ignore clearly-stated ideas that don't agree with it.

I also note that although you had asked me to respond with these figures, the only answer you had to my lengthy post was this distortion of a portion if it. Therefore I do not intend to answer any future posts at such length and with such care.

However, I do want to respond to your saying "why not put to a vote whether members want NOMSV to treat abusers or whatever?"

NOMSV does not treat anybody. NOMSV is an organization made up of survivors, therapists, other professionals who work with survivors and offenders, family and friends, and other interested parties. As Ken Singer notes, some of the 900 plus members of this Forum are NOMSV members. Most are not. You can follow the discussion of this topic under "NOMSV needs feedback about a suggested change in the way we operate " under Forum Questions or Suggestions.

Although you believe that you have worked through any authority problems you have had, it seems to me that you demonstrate over and over how much you are looking for authorities to blame, and in the present case you are using rules you disagree with in order to do this. While you are free to post such disagreements here, don't expect responses to every one of them, and do expect that any posts that cross the line of respect for others will be removed.

Richard Gartner
NOMSV President
 
Please just stop!!! This organization is what it is, if it doen't work for someone then go away. It seems to me that the majority of participants get something helpful out of it.

If anyone thinks that an internet discussion forum is the key to recovery from abuse, think again.

I find this a great place to hear others experiences, both positive and negative. And hopefully, occasionally, I can add some value. But I recognize that this is only one small tool in my toolbox.
 
Once again thanks for replying to me.
> > >
> > > However, I was not expecting such a lengthy
> answer
> > > from Mr. Gartner on statistics of sexual abuse.
> I
> > > read thru it too fast (it was also hard to
> > concentrate on considering the subject matter) and
> I
> > quoted incorrectly. What I had wanted to say is
> the
> > > majority of people who are abused do not abuse
> > other
> > people therefore leaving a small percentage of
> > abusers
> > who were abused. (However that leaves abusers who
> > were
> > > never abused. I wondered if Mr. Gartner has
> > > statistics on that? However from one of his
> > e-mails
> > he has indicated that he is sorry he provided the
> > statistics in the first place since I had
> > misunderstood them so I guess we will not find
> out.
> > However I do respect the fact that Mr. Gartner is
> > probably the best sexual abuse statistics
> > professional
> > there is and the best describer of sexual abuse
> > symptoms so I am sad that he
> > may not be providing this information.)
> > >
> > > Mr. Gartner and Mr. Singer feel that I have an
> "agenda" since I
> > > purposely misquoted him. As I have explained
> above
> > I
> > > do not have one, I just wanted to voice my
> opinion
> > > and I misquoted him accidently(if I had an
> agenda
> > would I
> > > make sloppy mistakes like that?). No disrespect
> > > intended but I never asked you to "respond with
> > > these
> > > figures" Dr. Gartner. But thanks anyway. If you
> want to "read"
> > into my mistake and come up with an explanation
> that
> > I
> > unconciously made that mistake well then let it
> be.
> >
> > >
> > > I am not looking for "authorities to blame",
> > > actually
> > > I never saw you Dr. Gartner as an authority, it
> never occurred
> > > to
> > > me that you were an authority or you considered
> > > yourself as an authority with respect to NOMSV.
> > Also I didn't know that you could obtain
> > "insight"
> > into someone from e-mail, I thought you had to see
> them in person.
> > >
> > > Mr. Singer states "It appears that your agenda
> is
> > > about whether NOMSV professional members should
> > > treat
> > > abusers or not. " Why is this an "agenda"? Why
> > can't
> > > it just be seen as an opinion and, once again, I
> > > still
> > > say it is a reasonable question for someone who
> > was
> > > abused to ask. My point is that many people did
> not know (and they do now) that therapists (it is
> not
> only you Mr. Singer) associated with NOMSV treat
> abusers and that is all I wanted to find out/let
> others know and that, yes, I feel it is not right to
> treat abusers, if that is what you mean by an
> "agenda"
> you are right. I don't feel that any President of
> NOMSV should be treating abusers if they are
> treating
> victims. Just my opinion.
> > >
> > > As for attending a NOMSV convention, there were
> so
> > > many
> > > workshops to attend the odds of attending your
> > > Workshop on treating abusers was slim and no I
> did
> > not attend it. If you are making the point that
> your
> workshop was out in the open in treating abusers,
> you
> are right, but you left out one important point: it
> was only for therapists and a few select others. Now
> I
> am not making any point or working my "agenda".
> > >
> > > Your main themes is that I am not credible. You
> sum
> > > up
> > > all MY carefully prepared postings and simply
> > > translate them into a "credibility"issue because
> I
> > > made a mistake on quoting Mr. Gartner.
> > > Was that credible? Was it credible to not
> mention
> that your workshop was for basically therapists?
> Hey,
> everyone is entitled to make mistakes.
> > >
> > > Yes, many of the members don't agree with me but
> > > that
> > > doesn't make it derisive. When a person is
> abused,
> > > they will probably affirm and support anyone who
> > > will
> > > help them or support them with their problems,
> > that
> > > is
> > > understandable because they have hope that this
> > person might help them solve their problems and
> > return
> > to normal life. However it would be also probable
> > > that
> > > they would be afraid to disagree with
> "authority". However, even though there are approx.
900 participants with, I believe you said, 100 paying
people why not let them decide how they feel about
this issue (I know no one is interested especially
after they saw how you treated me) whether they are
paying or not. Are you saying that if they all were
paying you would query them to see how they felt? Why
should therapists call all the shots on this National
Organization?
> >

I have never "twisted" my words or
> > > meanings
> > > I have always been straight-forward. A
> credibility
> > > problem? As Jesus said "let anyone cast the
> first
> > > stone" (sorry if I misquoted that). Oh, by the
> way
>
I noticed a lot of projection of victimes feelings
and
> identification with abusers in their postings. I am
> sorry that they did that it was not my intention.
> > >
> > > I feel the Board is uncomfortable with anyone
> who
> > > questions their policies. As I said before if
> you
> > look in a recent publication of Betrayal of
> > Innocence
> > by Susan Forward in the front matter you will see
> > that
> > she does not treat abusers at her patients
> requests
> > and she recently told me that she continues to do
> > the
> > same. Just a matter of fact, nothing more than
> that,
> > but my opinion is not an isolated one and a very,
> > very
> > well know expert on sexual abuse, probably world
> > reknown, does not treat them WHILE she treats
> > victims. However that is her business as treating
> patients is your business. However, NOMSV therapists
> should not cast themselves as authorities or experts
> because in the field of sexual abuse this does not
> exist.Actually the patient is always the expert.
> >
> > >
> > > I wonder if it would be possible for the members
> > of
> > > the Board to de-mystify themselves and in the
> > future and
> > > describe THEIR personal history with regards to
> > > personal issues and recovery so that "authority"
> > is
> > > NOT in play here and in their offices. That is,
> > the
> > client should know that therapists don't
> necessarily
> > have all their issues worked out which probably
> > would
> > result in much better therapy for victims. This
> can
> be done thru anonomous postings. This would give
victims the hope that no one is perfect and no one is
really an expert.
> >
> > If I have made a mistake in someway in my posting,
> I
> > am sorry, I am not perfect, and I am sorry that
> > everyone feels that I shouldn't talk about this
> > issue.
> >
> If you care to delete this, Mr. President, then do
> so.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
 
Dear Mr. Factsperson:

Sorry to disagree with you again sir, but let me point out what "I" see. Let me take one of your paragraphs which I believe is most telling and also most interesting to me. You say,

"Yes, many of the members don't agree with me but
that doesn't make it derisive [decisive]. When a person is abused, they will probably affirm and support anyone who will help them or support them with their problems, that is understandable because they have hope that this person might help them solve their problems and return to normal life. However it would be also probable that they would be afraid to disagree with "authority". However, even though there are approx. 900 participants with, I believe you said, 100 paying people why not let them decide how they feel about this issue (I know no one is interested especially after they saw how you treated me) whether they are paying or not. Are you saying that if they all were paying you would query them to see how they felt? Why should therapists call all the shots on this National Organization?"

This paragraph is simply WRONG on so many levels. First off, one thing I have noticed is no one here has dismissed anyone (though some have somewhat become agitated with you--and I think understandably so considering some of your caustic personal attacks on the integrity of people who have devoted their time freely to do this). On the otherhand, "YOU" in one sweeping motion have essentially dismissed all those abused who disagree with you by saying that we likely won't disagree with the board.

Where is your proof in this? I have actually disagreed with the board, and in one topic (the paying member status question they put up), I have even repeatedly responded and posted to those who commented on the subject after I did. I have absolutely no idea who the board members really even are, nor do I frankly care so much, at least when they posit their opinions (no offense to the board). I simply look at their comment and respond with logic rather than personal attacks. I do not make assumptions about their opinions based on their "board status," and I highly doubt that all the members share your opinion.

That brings me to my second point, you seem to be personally attacking people here while making sweeping generalizations about the rest of us. It is perfectly fine if you disagree, but you also need to treat our opinions with respect (the other members whose opinions you want to elicit so badly with your poll). For one, I pointed out to you up top the logistical problems in polling people about this, but you have not said anything about it (I might only be a "member" but I hope you respond sir). I mean, who will you ask, how will you ask them (considering that not everyone is always on this board looking for questions to respond to)? It's the same problem with the finding out whether everyone wants to have a membership fee--as I pointed out to them. What is your answer to this? Do you recommend sending a mass e-mail? I do not know that that would be wise as some mey have been using their regular work e-mail and may not like a random survey in there. That one strength of this board is anonymity, but unfortunately, it also presents a huge barrier to this. Unless you propose breaking that anonymity (which I would strongly oppose for other reasons), this is not feasible. Please respond to this if you have any concrete suggestions as to how to get a fair vote done.

Third, I pointed out to you that this is a volunteer organization, and if anyone should have a controlling voice in it, it should be those that devote the most time to it. I, for one, do not agree that one member (namely, "you") should be able to dismantle and disrupt this organization by your mere opinion. What I mean is that your idea of putting things to a vote does not make any logical sense.

For one, as I already said, it is simply impractical. Anytime you make a suggestion, it does not mean that everything should be put to a vote with massive e-mails and polling. That would ground this organization to a halt when there is outreach to be done and conferences to be made. Also, these board members (whoever they are), have taken the time to put up and maintain this discussion forum. They are volunteers with busy lives who DO welcome other people's opinion. Contrary to what you imply, they are NOT some elitist group that has some sort of dictatorial role. For one, please notice that they have been putting up your posts (despite some of your more caustic comments minced in nicely worded statements--incidentally, it seems that no one has even remotely come close to agreeing with you here saying that the board has treated you "so badly").

More importantly though, I believe when this organization first really started (or became more "organized" I guess) they were asking anyone on this forum about whether they wanted to be members of committees and the like. They still are looking for help I believe. Now despite my previous comments...this is my attempt to reconcile with you here, Mr. Factsperson :)

If you do respectfully disagree with them rather than having some sort of "agenda"--and I don't think you necessarily have one--then maybe try volunteering in something for a few months in this organization. Do some work for this organization, and you might even be able to take a leadership role in this in the future. I think though that you hvae first prove yourself to NOT be one stubbornly holding to his opinion in order to win an argument, but rather an honest person simply trying to look out for the good of the organization (which I think you may be, but a first step on proving this would be if you please resist the personal attacks, your stinging come back previously accusing someone as a "perpetrator" [post #4] was especially inappropriate...and a second step would be to respond to the "abused" posters' responses to YOUR points without dismissing their opinion as somehow always agreeable to the board--especially when that is simply not based on facts).

Again, I appeal to your integrity here (and I do believe you are honest in your disgreement) and urge you to make an honest attempt to figure out what you are trying to accomplish here. I am one who hates to lose arguments too, but I think that if you think it thoroughly and practically, you will see that what you suggest ("a poll" or removing therapists who treat abusers from this forum) is simply unreasonable. :D
 
Dear ABCD,

Thank you for your posting.

Could you please show me where I made CAUSTIC personal attacks on anyone? I find it interesting that people claim I do things which I have never done or have ever suggested. For example, another one would be I want NOMSV therapists who treat abusers "thrown" off the board!! I have NEVER said that but I think the person might be projecting their emotions and thoughts onto my comments (maybe that person is expressing how they feel about their abuser(s) and if they could recognize that it might go somewhere.

Yes I have been treated, I consider poorly, since I received a personal correspondence from a moderator who indicated that I was becoming derisive. And when I respectfully wrote back asking how I was being derisive and how to change that and still make my point, NO ONE bothered to answer back. Also our President indicated that if I am disrespectful (which I have not been let him show me where) my postings would be deleted (reminds me of a Communist state). However, the President at least posted that for everyone to see so I give him credit. All my postings have been, of course, public.

Thank you for indicating I said that most people would LIKELY not want to disagree with the Board, that was almost an exact quote so at least you read what I wrote. Yes, after being abused by people in authority who you trusted and yet you had to tolerate it and you may have been dependant on these people for survival and nurturing, yes, people after a history like that are LIKELY not to disagree with the Board as it is very easy to associate (unfortunately) their abusers with "authority". I believe I stated that I found this unfortunate and sad however.

I understand your situation with the Board, somewhat, but is it possible that you are disagreeing with me, saying I am wrong,etc. to sought of get on their "good side" with respect to your issues and you disagreeing with them? Think about it. I am not trying to argue with you or "bust your chops", etc. I just want you to look at that.

I think that people who can affort a fee should definitley pay, this website and the organization definitely needs funds for support. As for the anonymity of the board this is not so, just look at the website and it is posted who makes up the Board. Mr.Singer indicated he is a member of the Board. Since you made statements that I am WRONG and that I make personal attacks on people (which I do not) then maybe I can ask the question: did you read closely this website?

I do not think that it would be so difficult to tally votes from people indicating whether or not they want NOMSV boardmembers or therapists, etc. treating abusers using e-mail. However, I do not expect this to ever be brought to a vote. I guess I just feel that it is intuitively obvious why this might be an issue for many people whether you vote for it or not or whether it is acted upon or not. What was disturbing is that it was rejected as being an unimportant issue, I find that amazing. However, I do not find it amazing that people who post would disagree with that because of what I explained above. However I think I have acheived one goal, to bring out in the open that NOMSV therapists treat abusers which I BELIEVE many people did not know.

If people are actually totally volunteering that is fantastic. However one point is missing here.
Yes, people are volunteering but they are also making a name for themselves in their fields. I also have found resources provided by NOMSV therapists extremely thin and quite often people are selected for therapy to provide information to write books or articles not because who of is the neediest. I also have found from talking with other people that their fees are very high. If you think that therapists who treat abusers are doing it only for the emotional rewards this is not exactly true they are also making a name for themselves in their fields. Now, I don't feel that this is a personal attack on someone or a show of disrespect I am simply stating what is true and what I have heard from other people. I believe that NOMSV therapist are also reading the postings to obtain material for their intellectual endeavors. Now if you want to see this as a sign of disrespect it is not: but I do know that people got away with abusing others by claiming a "disrespect for their elders" when victims complained, think about it. Let me give you an example of a caustic personal attack: Dr. So and So is a totally unethical therapist who does not care about anyone except himself and is lying about so and so: see the difference here. Once again I HAVE NEVER MADE ANY REMARKS OF THIS TYPE NOR DO I BELIEVE THESE THINGS ABOUT ANYONE ASSOCIATED WITH THE BOARD OR NOMSV.

Actually one of the main purposes of my posting is to EMPOWER victims thru knowledge. No charge.

It is my impression that Mr. Singer and Dr. Gartner are not answering and letting other people disagree to prove I am being derisive as my last posting has been up for a week. If that is so let it be.
 
Factsperson: You asked this:

Dear ABCD,

Thank you for your posting.

Could you please show me where I made CAUSTIC personal attacks on anyone? I find it interesting that people claim I do things which I have never done or have ever suggested.
Click to expand...
You wrote this to Freevoice, on October 2.
Why don't you be a man and come out and tell everyone that you are a perpetrator?
Click to expand...
You may be right in not characterizing this as a CAUSTIC personal attack. CAUSTIC is too mild. It is more like a VILE, TOXIC, personal attack.

Not only do you disregard, misintrepret, and misquote what is in the replies written TO YOU, you also do not seem to be aware what you are writing in your own monologues.

That is what they are: Monologues. We have heard you. You have made your points. You have received much feedback; Some agrees with some of your points, much does not.

You seem incapable of accepting this. You do not engage in dialogue. You do have an agenda, several beefs; and yet you can't or won't even acknowledge them, except in the guise of bringing these "facts" to everyone's attention.

I, for one, am tired of this; Tired of your diatribes; tired of replying to you thoughtfully and respectfully only to be ignored.

Your reply to Freevoice seems to have been caused by his comment, "You seem to want attention." Well, Factsperson, I agree with him. And I also think that you want everyone to agree with anything you say.

I ask you again, as I did on October 13:

If you can, Factsperson, drop the rhetoric, forget everything in these posts, and tell us exactly what you want to say; without asking for agreement or a vote; without a hope of convincing everyone you are right.

If you cannot, then perhaps this site is not for you. I wish you luck in finding some peace, and an organization (and site) which is more to your liking and needs.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top