Why are abusers often victims of abuse?

And why do victims of homosexual molestation go on to commit homosexual molestation on others? I know that’s not always the case. But it seems we often hear that child molesters were molested when they were children, and those who were the victims of homosexual molestation go on to commit the same crime on others. Why is that?

If it’s abusive – if it was painful or traumatic for them – why would they be inclined to do the same to others? If it really was painful or traumatic, wouldn’t they be more empathic than others to the hurt they are causing and therefore be less inclined to commit such crimes?

I was thinking such thoughts when I read an item in the news today about US Congressman Foley, who’s been kicked out of Congress and is in hot water over his sexual emails and related acts with under-age boys. After being publicly outed and shamed, Foley made various flimsy excuses including “I was molested by a priest when I was a child.” Obviously it was just BS in a desperate attempt to gain sympathy or lessen the outrage against him. Well, now it turns out that a Catholic priest has admitted to molesting Foley way back when. I still question whether he’s just part of the Foley PR machine, but it provoked these thoughts.

If sex with a minor really is abusive (not just as a technical description, but as a fact – that the kid really is harmed and suffers emotional distress), why would the victim feel compelled to inflict such harm on another?

And if it was homosexual molestation, why would he want to commit homosexual molestation on another? Is Foley a homosexual? Is he homosexual as a result of being molested by a priest (or is it coincidence)? Isn’t it often the case that victims of homosexual molestation later recommit the crimes? Have they become homosexual as a result of the crimes against them? If not, how do you explain it.

I should add that I don’t mean any offense to homosexuals at all. I’ve got nothing against homosexuality, I believe it’s a perfectly valid and acceptable lifestyle choice, there’s nothing wrong with it, and I’m sure the overwhelming majority of homosexuals, as with heteros, are not child molesters. I’m also sure most homosexuals don’t have their sexual preference as a result of molestation. I don’t mean to suggest any of that. But I am curious whether others agree that there seem to be links as I described above, and if so why?

I guess the next question is why would people who have not been sexually abused sexually abuse children? And they’re not all kids in their teens. People abuse babies and infants too.

I don’t think there is an answer MT, at least an answer that any sane person could fathom.

[quote=“jdsmith”]I guess the next question is why would people who have not been sexually abused sexually abuse children? And they’re not all kids in their teens. People abuse babies and infants too.

I don’t think there is an answer MT, at least an answer that any sane person could fathom.[/quote]

There is an answer to it. Abuse isn’t about past aggressions, but about domination and power and fear.

Sometimes you have to stop looking for the answer that makes sense to you and look at the one that is glaring out at you.

I’ve modified the title because the old one didn’t properly reflect my question. First, it’s not just about sexual abuse – it applies to other types as well. Additionally, just as I didn’t mean any offense to homosexuals, I didn’t mean any offense to people who have been abused. Obviously it’s not a person’s fault if someone abuses them and many victims of abuse do NOT go on to mistreat others. I didn’t mean to suggest that either.

But it’s often said that people who abuse others – sexually, physically, emotionally – were often abused themselves. That’s part of what puzzles me. Why a person who has been mistreated and harmed would feel compelled to do the same to others, when it might seem they would be less likely to do so, being more aware of the painful consequences. I guess maybe those who have been severely, continuously abused for a long period of time may sometimes come to feel no one loves them, the world is cruel and uncaring, life sucks, and someone did these screwed up things to me, so – the hell with it – I’ll take out my agressions by doing the same to someone else.

But that doesn’t seem to be what happened in a case like Congressman Foley. In that case, apparently his priest diddled around with him a little for a fairly short period of time and gave him inappropriate massages and now he’s interested in sex with young boys. Is it possible there’s a cause and effect – that the priests actions led to Foley’s desires and actions – or is it just a complete excuse and he would have had those inclinations regardless of what the priest did or didn’t do to him?

And, is it possible homosexual molestation might lead a person to later commit homosexual molestation on others? If so, is taht victim a homosexual? Did he become homosexual as a result of the abuse he endured?

[quote=“Namahottie”] Abuse isn’t about past aggressions, but about domination and power and fear.

Sometimes you have to stop looking for the answer that makes sense to you and look at the one that is glaring out at you.[/quote]

Not all abuse is about such things is it? Someone like Mark Foley, a grown adult apparently sexually attracted to 15, 16, 17 year olds isn’t necessarily interested in domination, power and fear, is he? Isn’t it possible he just finds young boys sexually attractive? It’s not necessarily an intent to harm – it may be just an intent to satisfy his desires regardless of whether it is wrong and possibly harmful to others, right?

Anyway, as I said, I found it odd reading of his priest’s confession this morning that he had abused Foley and wondering why that would lead him to do the same. Maybe you’re right, Nama that one should stop looking for an answer because it just doesn’t make sense.

Here’s an article – I recognize it’s from a highly dubious source and the guy may be making up the whole story in an attempt to cover his shame over his lifestyle and/or get richer through a lawsuit – but it’s a guy who claims to be gay because he was molested by a priest. Is that possible? Doesn’t that seem contrary to common sense?

[quote]David Enright IV, a wealthy Albany socialite has sued the Catholic Church over being repeatedly molested by Rev. Joseph Romano who was a seminary counselor at Camp Tekawitha in 1961 and 1962.

Enright says he became a homosexual as a result of his molestation. Enright told the New York Post, “I believe that my life would be very different now. I’d probably be married, living in Greenwich, with four children in boarding school.”[/quote]
narth.com/docs/socialite.html

According to this article titled Do Sexually Abused Kids Become Abusers?, “®oughly one in 10 male victims of child sex abuse in a U.K. study later went on to abuse children as adults.”

Ok, but that study is comparable to my prior title, which was erroneous. I didn’t mean to suggest that most victims of abuse later commit abuse on others. Instead, I think there’s a greater likelihood that those who commit abuse on others were once abused in a similar fashion.

In other words, not “Why do so many As become Bs?” but
“Why were so many Bs once As?”

And, if B made A suffer terribly, why would that make A want to do the same?

or something like that

No you don’t stop looking for answer because it doesn’t make sense. You stop look for an answer that ‘should’ make sense.

For the Foley case, which I’m not fully abreast on, it seems, on surface, very convenient for him to use his past to absolve him of current responsibilities. And that’s what’s more important.

You raise a very good question. It should be pondered, mulled over and considered. In Western society, there is a concern about abuse, physical and sexual, but emotional abuse IMO has yet to be cracked, which is at the heart of a lot of abuse. Because emotional abuse can’t be defined in a 3 dimensional way it’s difficult in resolving it.

To have such cognitive thoughts, is a sign of empathy and compassion. Or just plain depth of perception. Not many people have that in the world today. For you it may, make sense not to pass on the abuse but abuse IMO is like a habit, one that often gets passed down or transmuted into another form.

I do think that abuse is about domination, fear, and power. There is an alluring power about having a young impressionable mind lust after you and you being able to manipulate it to your needs (Foley). Oprah has had pedophiles on her show, and some really honest dialogue about it. It’s not about the age, it’s about the innocence and the ability to fool the abused.

Honestly, I don’t think a lot of pedophiles enjoy what they do because of the guilt and shame that surrounds their acts, but they are caught in a sick cycle that they seem not to be able to break out of. Currently, in Britain, there is a group working with pedophiles to help them get back on track, and functioning in the real world. This is key to a healthy society. We have to deal with this ugliness so that we can stop it. It will take time but it can be done.

[quote=“Mother Theresa”]
In other words, not “Why do so many As become Bs?” but
“Why were so many Bs once As?”

And, if B made A suffer terribly, why would that make A want to do the same?

or something like that[/quote]

Well, put it this way— Why do countries still go to war when we have so many examples as to why not to?

We go to war for power and control.

I agree with Teresa, because how many pedophiles do you ever hear about who weren’t victims of abuse?

I agree with Nama’s viewpoint about abuse in general, but it doesn’t seem to fit the Foley case from what I’ve read.

When a person is abused they are hurt emotionally. They are made to feel vulnerable and shamed. For some people, the response to this is to become strong. They find the need to dominate, and when their security is threatened, they lash out in a way that makes them feel the strongest-- by putting someone else in the place they once were.

In the case of Rep. Foley, it seems (from reading an article on MSN) that it was not a case of a violent relationship, it was consensual. The congressman was seduced into an intimate relationship with a person in a position of both authority and trust, and both parties apparently enjoyed the intimacy. So, then in Rep. Foley’s case, it was likely not about passing on a traumatic experience, but in regaining a shared bond he enjoyed previously.

I imagine it’s mostly an excuse. Surely he already had the homosexual inclinations. However, having been fondled by an older man may have created in his mind the perception of an appropriate channel for sexual expression, and may have led him to believe later on that to do the same to a teen was acceptable.

Violent abuse, probably. But I think there are two kinds of sexual abuse, that committed out of anger & violence, and that committed out of simple perverse lust. Then there’s simply inappropriate sexual advances. Sending nudge nudge wink wink emails to older teen pages doesn’t seem angry or violent to me, nor does it strike me as particularly perverse, given that the pages were almost adults. Rather, it strikes me as highly inappropriate, given the general situation.

Well, they were older boys, older teens – not young boys, but otherwise I think you’ve got it pegged. (To everyone here, not just MT: I really don’t think it’s helpful to blur situations by referring to 16- to 17-year-olds as if they were young children. They are not. They are older teens nearing adulthood. I’m not saying molesting them is ok; I just think there’s a world of difference between emailing a 17-year-old and molesting a toddler, so let’s keep our descriptions honest, shall we?)

That is completely consistent with what I’ve read, which is that only a minority of the abused go on to abuse. However, the percentage of abusees who abuse later is much higher than the percentage in the general populace, so abuse is clearly a strong precipitating factor.

My take is that when a straight minor is seduced by an older woman, it is cool and fun and something to brag about to your buddies, etc. Do you hear straight teen boys cry about having sex with an adult woman? No, usually they are thanking their lucky stars they got laid. When a closeted gay man is forced out, however, he’s embarrassed and ashamed, then all of a sudden, of course, he’s gay because he was a victim of abuse and alcoholic. How convenient–blame it on the church.

I think it is an excuse–a lot of older, closeted gay men are really fucked up in the head and love to play the “I was abused card” when in fact they were probably being randy, naughty teenagers going out of their way to find some action. Foley’s gay and he’s just making excuses. For socially bankrupt men such as he, sending out gay feelers and trying to set up secret trysts is the only mating ritual they’ve ever known. He was probably just trying to relive his teen years. Besides, a grown man would just laugh in his face.

[quote=“Flicka”]My take is that when a straight minor is seduced by an older woman, it is cool and fun and something to brag about to your buddies, etc. Do you hear straight teen boys cry about having sex with an adult woman? No, usually they are thanking their lucky stars they got laid. When a closeted gay man is forced out, however, he’s embarrassed and ashamed, then all of a sudden, of course, he’s gay because he was a victim of abuse and alcoholic. How convenient–blame it on the church.[/quote] To brag about getting laid by older woman may be more perceptual than fact. Only recently has the ideal that older females sexually abusing underage males has been considered not acceptable and an actual concern. Take the cases of the teachers in the US in the past year or so. I think Flicka has a point, that there is that idea of what male sexuality is has a direct effect on what is abusive and not. One case I can think of is in the movie “Antwone Fisher”. It’s based on an autobiography where the author relates his own sexual abuse at the hands of a woman while in foster care. I never read the book, but it’s in the movie, and you can see in the movie how the abuse effects his relating to his own sexuality.

Actually, there was an article about Foley concerning how gays in DC and the GOP were trying to handle this, as he was known to be in the closet. The concern was that gays in DC (elsewhere) wanted to downplay his actions for fear(rightly so) of backlash and generalization. The problem with Foley isn’t just his lack of accountability, but the political atmosphere in DC where the GOP isn’t really that acceptable of gays. The hostility in that environment doesn’t make room for creating a society of acceptance.

I don’t think it is surprising at all that abused children grow up to abuse others. Sure, they may know it hurt them, but the sources of our behavior, especially to people close to us, and especially to our children, are not really conscious. You can tell yourself that you’ll never treat your kids the way your parents treated you (if you were abused), but often you end up doing the same things - even with self-knowledge, the amount of which also varies. You can’t see it in yourself sometimes - my sister is very clear and knowledgeable about the abuse we suffered as children, she can see that our other sister is repeating a few of the same patterns, but she is completely blind to the fact that she too is repeating some of the same things.
If you have a puppy and you beat it a lot, will you end up with an adult dog who is friendly and well-socialized? Obviously not - you’ll end up with a vicious dog in most cases, and a terrified dog unable to interact with humans in a few.

[quote=“Mother Theresa”]And why do victims of homosexual molestation go on to commit homosexual molestation on others? I know that’s not always the case. But it seems we often hear that child molesters were molested when they were children, and those who were the victims of homosexual molestation go on to commit the same crime on others. Why is that?

If it’s abusive – if it was painful or traumatic for them – why would they be inclined to do the same to others? If it really was painful or traumatic, wouldn’t they be more empathic than others to the hurt they are causing and therefore be less inclined to commit such crimes?

I was thinking such thoughts when I read an item in the news today about US Congressman Foley, who’s been kicked out of Congress and is in hot water over his sexual emails and related acts with under-age boys. After being publicly outed and shamed, Foley made various flimsy excuses including “I was molested by a priest when I was a child.” Obviously it was just BS in a desperate attempt to gain sympathy or lessen the outrage against him. Well, now it turns out that a Catholic priest has admitted to molesting Foley way back when. I still question whether he’s just part of the Foley PR machine, but it provoked these thoughts.

If sex with a minor really is abusive (not just as a technical description, but as a fact – that the kid really is harmed and suffers emotional distress), why would the victim feel compelled to inflict such harm on another?

And if it was homosexual molestation, why would he want to commit homosexual molestation on another? Is Foley a homosexual? Is he homosexual as a result of being molested by a priest (or is it coincidence)? Isn’t it often the case that victims of homosexual molestation later recommit the crimes? Have they become homosexual as a result of the crimes against them? If not, how do you explain it.

I should add that I don’t mean any offense to homosexuals at all. I’ve got nothing against homosexuality, I believe it’s a perfectly valid and acceptable lifestyle choice, there’s nothing wrong with it, and I’m sure the overwhelming majority of homosexuals, as with heteros, are not child molesters. I’m also sure most homosexuals don’t have their sexual preference as a result of molestation. I don’t mean to suggest any of that. But I am curious whether others agree that there seem to be links as I described above, and if so why?[/quote]

Perhaps you are honestly trying to understand the Mark Foley situation. Here are a few things to think about:
It does not matter whether it is male on male or female on female or male on female or female on male abuse - it does not matter. What does matter is the abuser is a sick person who needs to be punished, and monitored for life. The abuser is a CHILD molester first and foremost. Their sexual orientation has absolutely nothing to do with it.

[quote][url=http://www.aifs.gov.au/nch/issues5.html#homosexual]‘Homosexual’ Offenders

The stereotypic ‘paedophile’ can be classified as being more likely to be an extrafamilial, preferential offender who indulges in same-sex or ‘homosexual’ offending (Willis 1993). The basic societal assumption is that paedophiles who sexually abuse same-sex children are members of the homosexual community (King 1994). That is, there is no qualitative difference between a homosexual man who engages in sexual behaviour with another adult male, and a male who engages in sexual behaviour with a boy. As recently as 1995 this perception has resulted in moves by the Victorian Government to enact a special clause in the new Victorian Equal Opportunity Act 1995 allowing employers to discriminate against homosexuals (gay men and lesbians) who apply for jobs which involve the supervision, care or instruction of children (Stewart 1995). Yet the supposed link between homosexuality and paedophilia, and the assumption that paedophiles have come from the gay community is not backed up by evidence.

An offender’s sexual orientation, whether he perceives himself to be homosexual, bisexual or heterosexual, is not mentioned as a risk factor, indicator, or characteristic in typologies of child sex offenders (Finkelhor, Williams, Burns and Kalinowski 1988; Wurtele and Miller-Perrin 1993). Offender typologies account for same-sex sexual abuse purely on the biological sex of the victim and offender, regardless of self-reported sexual orientation.

Willis noted that the attempt to classify offenders as ‘homosexual’ and ‘heterosexual’ involved ‘crude categories [that were] very unreliable given the extensive overlap of the [offender’s] behaviour’ (1993:20). Willis also reported that ‘substantial numbers of non-familial child molesters do not display or report deviant sexual preferences’ (1993:22). That is, many offenders offend against both male and female children, defying strict classification on the basis of sexual orientation. In addition, Willis indicated that many offenders do not have any outward signs of so- called ‘deviant’ sexual behaviour, such as homosexuality.

Summit (1990) stated that male child molesters tend to cultivate adult female partners regardless of whether they engage in same-sex or opposite-sex offending behaviour. Despite a lack of references to support this claim, it is one of the few statements specifically referring to ‘homosexual’ offending and the link to heterosexual (adult-adult) sexual behaviour[/url].[/quote]

Secondly, homosexuality is NOT a lifestyle choice. Gawd! How many friggin times do we need to say this?! It is something innate just like your love of women is.

Third, if you don’t accept that it is an issue about child molestation but rather sexual orientation, then realize this: most child abuse is perpetrated via heterosexual acts, by assumed heterosexuals, and it is usually male on female.

Fourth, I would like to see whatever evidence you have when you say “that victims of homosexual molestation later recommit the crimes.” I have never read or heard of this.

The fact that you didn’t mean to offend any homosexuals is nice, unfortunately, you managed to be very offensive in your statements and assumptions.

Foley probably is a homosexual which is not a crime. More importantly, he seems to be a pedophile which is. No one becomes a homosexual or a heterosexual because of sexual abuse. You would understand this if you understood that homosexuality as heterosexuality is NOT a choice. I have read and heard that abused sometimes become abusers. That is an entirely different issue.

Bodo :fume:

Humans are creatures of habit.

[quote][url=http://www.bishop-accountability.org/reports/2004_02_27_JohnJay/LitReview/1_3_JJ_TheoriesAnd.pdf]BIOLOGICAL THEORY
Concerned with organic explanations of human behavior ; physiological factors (e .g .,hormone levels, chromosomal makeup) have an effect of sexual behavior;androgens promote sexual arousal, orgasm, and ejaculation, as well as regulate sexuality, aggression,cognition,emotion and personality;abnormal levels of androgens lead to aggressive sexual behavior

PSYCHODYNAMIC THEORY
Sexual deviance is an expression of the unresolved problems experienced during the stages of development ; the human psyche is composed of three primary elements: the id, the ego and the superego; sexual deviancy occurs when the id (pleasure principle) is overactive

BEHAVIORAL THEORY
Deviant sexual behavior is a learned condition, acquired through the same mechanisms by which conventional sexuality is learned ; it is acquired and maintained through basic conditioning principles.

ATTACHMENT THEORY
Humans have a propensity to establish strong emotional bonds with others,and when individuals have some loss or emotional distress, they act out as a result of their loneliness and isolation

COGNITIVE-BEHAVIORAL THEORY
Addresses the way in which offenders’ thoughts affect their behavior ; focuses on the way in which sex offenders diminish their feelings of guilt and shame by rationalizing it through excuses and justifications.

INTEGRATED THEORY
There are preconditions to child sexual abuse, which integrate the various theories about why individuals begin to participate in sexually deviant behavior ;addresses the motivation to offend and the rationalization of the behavior;focus is on the inhibitions of the offenders (internal barriers) and how when these barriers are diminished, distorted thoughts can lead to deviant actions

THEORIES ON ABUSE BY CLERGY
No clear consensus as to why some priests molest children and others do not,though many theories address the stunted psychosexual development of the priest; the psychodynamic model addresses the way in which the experiences of shame interact with unrealistic, moral expectations conveyed through church teachings that have been internalized, resulting in the creation of a shame cycle that stunts the individual’s psychosexual development and contributes to sexual misconduct; experience of celibacy interacts with past traumas (e .g., childhood sexual abuse( and may stunt the priest’s psychosexual development at a pread-olescent/adolescent stage leading to sexual misconduct

THE OFFENSE CYCLE
When sexually abusing a child, the abuser must make a series of decisions prior to committing thedeviant act. These decisions may be made over a period of time or on the spur of the moment if the opportunity to abuse presents itself. In order to understand a child molester’s behavior, it is necessary to evaluate the antecedent conditions that allow for a pro-offending environment and how these antecedents vary amongst offenders . Though discussed at a greater length in the next section of this paper, a brief explanation is necessary here of two types of child molesters : the fixated offender and the regressed offender[/url].[/quote]

The above article discusses the theories of child sexual abuse, and the cycle of abuse. I have not had the opportunity to read through it yet, but it seems that it touches on several of the questions Mother Theresa is wondering about.

Bodo

[quote][url=http://www.allaboutcounseling.com/sexual_abuse.htm]Perpetrators
Can a child molester be rehabilitated?
Do abuser’s feel remorse?
How can I identify if someone might be an abuser? What are some identifying features?
Why do people sexually abuse children?
Statistics

What are the perpetrator statistics on fathers, brothers, neighbors, etc.?
How does alcohol play a role?
What are the statistics on boys vs girls who are abused?
For how many years does abuse usually continue?
Is there more sexual abuse in the US than in other countries?
Trauma Recovery

What is repressed memory syndrome? Is this real?
If I have memories of sexual abuse, how do I know if they are accurate?
Does childhood sexual abuse affect adult relationships?
Can sexual abuse make individuals gay/homosexual?
Why do so many people who were sexually abused wait so long to report it?
Shouldn’t adults who were abused as children try to let it go?
If I, or someone I know was sexually abused, what can I do to help recover?
What is it like to tell someone you’ve been abused and not be believed?
Is it okay to give support to both the abuser and the abused in a family?[/url] [/quote]

[quote=“Bodo”]The fact that you didn’t mean to offend any homosexuals is nice, unfortunately, you managed to be very offensive in your statements and assumptions.

Bodo :fume:[/quote]

Oh, cut the histrionics. :unamused: I was just trying to start a thoughtful discussion on a concedely sensitive topic and, as I said, I mean no offense to anyone. Just trying to work through a few thoughts. No need to try to shut it down with your judgmental PCism.

Look, I admit that it’s a sensitive subject of discussion, but you’ve got me all wrong with your knee-jerk reactions. I’ll repeat:

a. I don’t believe there’s anything wrong with homosexuality
b. I don’t believe homos are any more likely than heteros to commit sex crimes

I never meant to suggest either of those things, I don’t think I did, and those issues would in any event be tangential to my questions, which I believe are perfectly valid and subject to reasonable debate and discussion. I believe you misread some posts.

Instead of trying to shut down the discussion, why don’t you answer my questions about Foley. Do you believe he’s homosexual, from what you’ve read? Is it pure coincidence that he’s homosexual and was diddled by a priest, or is it possible that childhood experience helped result in him being sexually attracted to males? Is it abusive for a priest to have sexual relations with young boys? If so, why would at least one of the victims of such abuse later want to do the same to others? And more generally, why would victims of all sorts of abuse go on to do the same to others?

My goal was not to argue but to provoke serious discussion. I appreciate the thoughtful responses from Dragonbones and Flicka for example. I’ll look into some of your articles, Bodo, when I have time later.

Very simple. No-one gives a damn about the victims of abuse. Every time someone is convicted of abusing someone there is a queue a mile long of Ologists making excuses for the behaviour of the deviant. We know everything about Foley, for example. I know what kind of fucking breakfast cereal the guy prefers. We know nothing whatsoever about the so-called victims of abuse in that case - not even their ages!!!

The public at large is fascinated with criminals, but finds victims rather irksome, as dealing with their pain and suffering is so, like, negative. THe same is true of so-called “deviance” so-called experts. The only thing the study of deviance has shown us over the last 100 years is that during the two world wars crime dropped significantly in the UK as all the would-be crims were off in France killing Gerry.

There is nothing makes me angrier (NB this is not true) than reading some half-baked shite by some dipshit sociologist telling us that everything is OK but society is to blame. As Monty Python put it so well in the Dead Bishop on the Landing sketch: “Right then! Arrest society!”

I would urge these Guardian-lite readers to consider the vicious circle created by all this creepy fascination with the criminal deviant. So the Institute for Stating the Blindingly Obvious concludes that Kurt the Kiddyfucker was abused as a kid. Right. And where were these same bleeding hearts and artists when Kurt the Kiddyfucker was being abused as a kid? Making the same tired old excuses for his father/uncle/whatever at the time. Certainly not spending time trying to help Kurt with years of expensive psychotherapy and just giving the poor kid a decent life. No. But his abuser will have had millions of pounds of state money lavished on him while the poor kid goes back to the council estate to grow up in the same shitty environment he was in before. Unless he is so lucky as to be fostered by people who care, rather than languish in some foster home.

Wrong question, in my opinion. The proper question is “Why does society waste its time worrying about murderers, rapists, and kiddy fiddlers?”