Jump to content

BSA CSA: Concealment or Trustworthy, Loyal...?


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 153
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Shame on  you.   Eventually every discussion ends with bringing Hitler in.  I'd argue against devaluing other people by associating them with trump or evil or racism or genocide.  It's just not scout

I am going to try to keep this response as scout like as possible...but I just might cross that line so my apologies to moderators if I do. @skeptic you are wrong on so many levels. The trauma of

Now please do not destroy the negative bubbles mrjohns2.  So, as this thread continues, some resourceful or more determined are finding indicators from the awful files that support the idea that at th

Posted Images

4 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

My point is that there wasn't a recognition that non-violent sexual abuse would result in long-standing psychological damage.  Yes, if a child was raped and was catatonic afterwards, the system could recognize that as a direct impact of the assault.  But even then, they would work to fix the catatonia and once resolved, would view the matter as largely resolved.  If a child was abused but continued on with life apparently normal (home and school and church life) the view was essentially "Oh, they came through it ok, no further work needed".  The idea that there might be PTSD like symptoms or problems with attachments and relationships further down the road wasn't even on the radar.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, elitts said:

non-violent sexual abuse

Hold on thar, Baba Looey. What do you mean by this? All sexual abuse is violent. Do you mean non-physical? I know you're making a different point, but this sorta made my skin crawl. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

Hold on thar, Baba Looey. What do you mean by this? All sexual abuse is violent. Do you mean non-physical? I know you're making a different point, but this sorta made my skin crawl. 

I'm using the commonly understood definition of "violent", not the expanded interpretation that sexual assault advocates like to use.

Quote

using or involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something

So essentially, sexual abuse or sexual assault that doesn't result in physical injury.

And for the people who will read this without the context of the whole thread, I'm not discounting or downplaying non-violent abuse or assault, I'm referencing a distinction that used to be made.

  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, elitts said:

I'm using the commonly understood definition of "violent", not the expanded interpretation that sexual assault advocates like to use.

Um, who are these "sexual assault advocates" who like to extrapolate definitions? I feel like the hole is getting deeper and wider.

12 minutes ago, elitts said:

So essentially, sexual abuse or sexual assault that doesn't result in physical injury.

So, "physical injury" is the equivalent of "visible injury." Do I have that right? I'll go back to your post about fraudulent concealment in a bit. Just want to clarify terms for now.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

Um, who are these "sexual assault advocates" who like to extrapolate definitions? I feel like the hole is getting deeper and wider.

 

So, "physical injury" is the equivalent of "visible injury." Do I have that right? I'll go back to your post about fraudulent concealment in a bit. Just want to clarify terms for now.

1:  NGOs like RAINN.  Usually it's people or organizations attempting to drive home the severity of their issue by creating a false equivalency.  Some examples include:  "asking for sex repeatedly = coercion = rape", "sex with someone who has been drinking = rape".

2: Well, visible to a doctor doing an examination.  Internal tearing and deep bruising may not be visible to a bystander, but are still a physical injuries.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, elitts said:

My point is that there wasn't a recognition that non-violent sexual abuse would result in long-standing psychological damage.  Yes, if a child was raped and was catatonic afterwards, the system could recognize that as a direct impact of the assault.  But even then, they would work to fix the catatonia and once resolved, would view the matter as largely resolved.  If a child was abused but continued on with life apparently normal (home and school and church life) the view was essentially "Oh, they came through it ok, no further work needed".  The idea that there might be PTSD like symptoms or problems with attachments and relationships further down the road wasn't even on the radar.

Please read the summation of the first study (published in 1990). 

 The sexually abused men were significantly more likely to have manifested compulsive behaviors such as chemical addiction and abuse, sexual acting out, compulsive spending, compulsive overworking, and compulsive overeating. They were more likely to have had problems with truancy in school and later to have been involved in criminal behavior. Overall, the victims were more psychologically disturbed than the nonvictims. 3 figures, 5 tables, and 38 references

Edited by johnsch322
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

Please read the summation of the first study (published in 1990). 

I'm not sure what you think I'm missing.  The point I was making was that before the 80s the findings of this study weren't commonly understood or accepted.  This study being published in 1990 doesn't contradict that.

  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, elitts said:

1:  NGOs like RAINN.  Usually it's people or organizations attempting to drive home the severity of their issue by creating a false equivalency.  Some examples include:  "asking for sex repeatedly = coercion = rape", "sex with someone who has been drinking = rape".

So, are you saying neither of these are actually sexual assault or abuse? I know we're talking about concealment and fraudulent concealment by extension, but I think understanding how you define the terms is important, at least to me.

2 hours ago, elitts said:

2: Well, visible to a doctor doing an examination.  Internal tearing and deep bruising may not be visible to a bystander, but are still a physical injuries.

And, this means only discernible, external injury or damage is physical injury, discounting the effects of child sexual (and other) abuse trauma on the brain? I have discernible injuries and physical symptomalogy from both the acts and allostatic load, but I also have neurological impacts, also known as injuries. Again, this is not the topic of the thread, but knowing what you mean will help me. My parents wanted to send me to counseling when I was 15, but I refused. They saw evidence of injury/trauma, just not the source.  

Afterthought: Shoulda mentioned this. I had no idea the anal leakage I've had most of my life and the peri-anal fistulae I experienced in my late 30s/early 40s was in any way related to rape. Never crossed my mind. I thought it was the stress of my job and other things. This forum and another friend I've met since the case started helped me understand it. Not coincidentally, the symptoms went full on after my dad died and my oldest son asked to join Scouts. "The body keeps the score."

Neurodevelopmental research has taught us about specific windows of neural development that exist for the optimal wiring of children’s sensory systems. During these windows, a child’s sensory systems learn to appropriately process perceptions and, ultimately, integrate them into fully developed human cognition (2). During brain development, how children play their environmental instruments and respond to their life’s music will depend on the score of their individual genetic vulnerabilities. Eventually, this mental evolution begins to shape who they are, how they view the world, how they interact with others, and their attitudes toward self. Therefore, developmental disruptions can cause significant consequences and the literature clearly shows that early neglect, nutrition, socialization, and stress define who we are as children and become as adults. Children’s significant dependence upon caregivers clearly can leave them at risk for deficient cognitive development. In addition, their very active limbic systems teach them about what is or is not safe, so with early threats and adversity, they begin to develop survival strategies that may endure for a lifetime. Child abuse, whether physical, psychological, or sexual, presents a threat that is universally recognized as having a significant negative impact on the life of a child (3). Nevertheless, overwhelming data exist suggesting that child abuse, particularly sexual abuse, currently occurs throughout the world. The ramifications of this fact are enormous (4).

Many neuroscientific studies of structural and functional brain networks that compare abused and non-abused children demonstrate the significant results of childhood sexual abuse. These studies have uncovered electrophysiological brain changes such as abnormal neurophysiological interactions (5,6), altered brain structure, and deregulated brain activation to stimuli (7). In addition to the anatomical and electrophysiological consequences, abused children show significant cognitive impairments that can impact their future life trajectories as they emerge into adulthood (8).

#####

Brain areas implicated in the stress response include the amygdala, hippocampus, and prefrontal cortex. Traumatic stress can be associated with lasting changes in these brain areas. Traumatic stress is associated with increased cortisol and norepinephrine responses to subsequent stressors. Antidepressants have effets on the hippocampus that counteract the effects of stress. Findings from animal studies have been extended to patients with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) showing smaller hippocampal and anterior cingulate volumes, increased amygdala function, and decreased medial prefrontal/anterior cingulate function. In addition, patients with PTSD show increased cortisol and norepinephrine responses to stress. 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3181836/

Image: https://educationnorthwest.org/sites/default/files/trauma-and-the-developing-brain.pdf

76E4394E-81F6-40E7-9EC0-A4DD87B12E1D.jpeg

Edited by ThenNow
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Our problem is that none of us see things exactly the same, and certainly do not intelectually and emotionally respond the same to various issues.  And, it depends on the age of those experiencing a trauma.  Very young emotional or physical trauma may be so buried that few ever really undrstand what that small discomfort or awful fear is that comes to them in dreams or with some trigger.  Until if connected my brother's teasing me about his sunlamp being a wolf's red yee, I could not sleep without some light.  Once I figured it out, it no longer was a problem.  Similarly, I understand why electricity frightens me because my parents told me about my putting a bobbye pin in a wall socket when still in diapers, and the result.  I can sort of laugh, since I survived, but that is still scary to me, and I find myself telling young parents to make sure they child proof things.  Maybe why the title ofthe movie Fifty Shades of Gray is so powerful when you think about it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, elitts said:

This issue isn't "Concealment" (which clearly the BSA did) it's "Fraudulent Concealment".  In general no one has an obligation to inform others when they've committed a tort against them.  The only time such an obligation exists is when there is a fiduciary or other "special relationship".  So the issue here isn't so much whether the BSA concealed the amount of abuse happening it's whether there was a duty to inform people.  And even then, I suspect "Fraudulent Concealment" could only apply when the BSA had some way of knowing a particular child was victimized.  So basically only those who filed complaints would be eligible.

Thanks for bringing this up. The thread started (via the Mother Ship) talking about concealment, sans the fraud part. We were not talking about fraudulent concealment but, as you say, that is where I/we took it with discussions about my case and others. It's good you acknowledge that the two are different. Whether culpability holds in both contexts will be a matter of ongoing debate, as on this thread.

You correctly state the summary judgment finding from the case I referenced, of course. I respect your reporting of it.

This is what I have read across the various BSA and RCC cases. The effort to use the clear and admitted concealment of CSA by BSA on the macro level has yet to be successful in defeating a SoL defense. To my knowledge, that is. I think it is coming, especially in light of some of the documentaries and investigations by AGs and now the FBI. We shall see. What have been successful are the cases where it is clear BSA knew the abuser was out there and active or previously active and failed to warn and protect. Again, the "special relationship" is a key component to the FC finding. I don't think that can be in question, but you may differ. Several of us have strong bases to assert FC in the face of a SoL defense to civil action for negligence. Others may have the argument, especially if the judge rejects the third-party releases and this converts to the ol' flip the toggle plan. The craft may need to pitch out some cargo, land, refuel, retool and reset her course. Sounds akin to an emergency landing to me, but I will try not to think about it today. Try.  

Edited by ThenNow
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, skeptic said:

Our problem is that none of us see things exactly the same, and certainly do not intelectually and emotionally respond the same to various issues.  And, it depends on the age of those experiencing a trauma.  Very young emotional or physical trauma may be so buried that few ever really undrstand what that small discomfort or awful fear is that comes to them in dreams or with some trigger.  Until if connected my brother's teasing me about his sunlamp being a wolf's red yee, I could not sleep without some light.  Once I figured it out, it no longer was a problem.  Similarly, I understand why electricity frightens me because my parents told me about my putting a bobbye pin in a wall socket when still in diapers, and the result.  I can sort of laugh, since I survived, but that is still scary to me, and I find myself telling young parents to make sure they child proof things.  Maybe why the title ofthe movie Fifty Shades of Gray is so powerful when you think about it.

I hope with all my heart that you are not comparing being raped by another human being to putting a bobby pin into a socket or that understanding what happened will make the trauma go away like yours did from a teasing brother. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

I hope with all my heart that you are not comparing being raped by another human being to putting a bobby pin into a socket or that understanding what happened will make the trauma go away like yours did from a teasing brother. 

Sorry, but I think you are asking a truly misquided question.  I am simply pointing out that trauma, either physical or mental, especially if repressed for decades for some reason, causes problems that can torment, especially if something happens to trigger it again.  You surely can understand that without implying what you seem to be implying.  There are NO traumas that do not leave some type of hidden scars mentally.  And often they are put into our emotionally padded rooms to stay unless triggered.  Many are worse than others, but they are all real and leave their own scars.  And none of them should be trivialized because ours is "worse"; they all require us to find a way to adjust and with luck keep them locked down.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, skeptic said:

Sorry, but I think you are asking a truly misquided question.  I am simply pointing out that trauma, either physical or mental, especially if repressed for decades for some reason, causes problems that can torment, especially if something happens to trigger it again.  You surely can understand that without implying what you seem to be implying.  There are NO traumas that do not leave some type of hidden scars mentally.  And often they are put into our emotionally padded rooms to stay unless triggered.  Many are worse than others, but they are all real and leave their own scars.  And none of them should be trivialized because ours is "worse"; they all require us to find a way to adjust and with luck keep them locked down.

I do not find my comment misguided at all. You have been in multiple discussions where you downplay Child Sexual Abuse, the reporting of, the handling by authorities and families and now you are trying to make case for teasing and sticking bobby pins into electrical outlets to being equivalent to the effects of Child Sexual Abuse. I can assure as someone who was teased by a sibling and was told by my parents of charring electrical outlets by various means that the trauma of my sexual abuse has left far bigger scars and caused much issues in my life than a compulsion to tell people about kid proofing homes. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...