“When sexual abuse occurs in the absence
of violence,
and in the presence of trust,
kids may be totally disarmed.”
In that short exchange,
Amy conveyed two important lessons: first, that professionals should let
victims tell us how they experienced sexual violations, and second, a victim
will often have an otherwise valued relationship with their abuser. This is especially true for child victims,
when more than four out of five sexually abused kids are abused by a friend or
relative.
Amy was indeed harmed,
in ways that she would need help understanding, but she didn’t experience the
kind of violence that immediately
cues kids that something bad is happening.
When sexual violations occur with the recognizable violence of pain,
bodily injury, force, or threats, even young children instinctively know that
something is very wrong. Sexual abuse that
includes “violence” is easily recognizable, always harmful, and always against
the law. But when sexual violations
occur without veritable violence, many children, predisposed to trust their
abuser, often don’t recognize that they are in the midst of sexual abuse. Sometimes sexual abuse is a violation of a relationship.
One insidious
characteristic of non-violent sexual abuse is that it may be unrecognized. When people are asked why they didn’t report the
abuse, they sometimes say they felt duped, perhaps complicit, but mostly
confused. And when victims otherwise
liked their offender, they often didn’t report because they were afraid of the
uncertainty of the aftermath – for themselves and for the offender.
These are among the
findings of research conducted by psychologist Susan Clancy. Dr. Clancy interviewed hundreds of adult
survivors of child sexual abuse for her 2009 book, The Trauma Myth; The Truth About the Sexual Abuse of Children – and Its
Aftermath. Clancy reported that the
vast majority of sexual abuse of children occurs without violence, and, as a
result, adult survivors typically expressed that, as children, they felt more
confused than traumatized by the experience, especially if the abuser was
someone who they otherwise liked and trusted.
Clancy suggested that children experience sexual abuse in a range of
unique ways and that professionals should be supportive in letting kids tell us
how they experienced sexual abuse, with cautious judgment. Clancy validated Amy’s experience.
In the years after
“lessons from Amy,” when I began to work with offenders, I discovered that offenders
are similarly disabled by the other side of the same coin: offenders usually admit
they knew they were taking advantage of another, but are slow to understand
sexual harm that is not accompanied by violence. Non-violent sexual violations often occur in
a blind spot for both victims and offenders, especially when abuse is within
families or between friends.
When people have an
understanding of “sex offenders” as violent rapists, predatory child molesters,
or otherwise “evil monsters,” and family or friends don’t fit that description,
children are unguarded by familiar relationships. When sexual abuse occurs in the absence of
violence, and in the presence of trust, kids may be totally disarmed. The “monster myth” and perceptions that sexual
abuse must be “violent,” may obscure both victims and offenders from
recognizing a broad range of sexual violations.
More than half of all
children who are sexually abused, are abused by an older child. Depending on the age difference between kids,
sexual contact might be against the law in one state (or province), but not in
another. In many states, sex between
teenagers might be “statutory rape,” even if it meets criteria for consent. If certain sexual behaviors are “statutorily”
proscribed, they are, by definition, illegal, but if it is truly consensual should
it be called “rape,” which in any form is understood to embody violence?
Prevention of sexual
abuse should begin by teaching kids about sexual respect, but teenagers need to
also know local “statutory rape” laws, or risk becoming a “child molester” or “rapist”
because they crossed a legal definition or jurisdictional line. People are taught from a young age that
violence is never okay, and that sexual violence is particularly
reprehensible. But in the absence of
violence, the rules for interpersonal sex are often confusing for young people. Teaching people about sexual respect goes beyond
avoidance of sexual violence, and inoculates both future victims and would-be
offenders.
In summary, sexual
violence is not a synonym for sexual abuse – it is a subset. When we describe all sexual abuse as sexual
assault or sexual violence, we risk losing recognition by victims as well as
offenders. We also lose the critical
importance of context and the actual continuum of sexual abuse. Perhaps in our zeal to convey that sexual
abuse is a serious matter, we use “sexual violence” as an attention-getting,
generic term, however, using “sexual violence” to describe all sexual violations
might exacerbate deceptive myths, and unwittingly hinder public education and
prevention efforts.
Jon Brandt, MSW, LICSW