Abuse isn't black and white...or is it?

[Zapbasket]

 

I'll just say that people only have the power over you, going forward, that you give them. That will be my 'final thought'.

 

And I completely agree with you, as I would have if you'd said it before this thread ever began.

 

So try to understand that all I am trying to do here is to change what kind of "giver" I am--i.e., giver of power to others. You may not agree with my methodology to achieve the result, but at least we can now see that we agree on the result.

[GunslingerRoland]

I think this largely falls into the category of " I don't how to define ABUSE but I know it when I see it."

 

 

If you've never said something mean to someone you love... well that isn't normal. Everyone has said something mean to their spouse, their child, their elderly parents, their pet. Does that mean we are all abusers?

 

 

If you simplify it to that level, while I think it gives us pause for thought about our own actions I also think it takes away from the horror of someone who has been truly emotionally abused. Same as putting a child who is spanked with a bare hand in the same category as a child who is physically abused, or a woman who is whistled at on the street in the same category as a woman who is viciously raped.

[Zapbasket]

I think this largely falls into the category of " I don't how to define ABUSE but I know it when I see it."

 

 

If you've never said something mean to someone you love... well that isn't normal. Everyone has said something mean to their spouse, their child, their elderly parents, their pet. Does that mean we are all abusers?

 

 

If you simplify it to that level, while I think it gives us pause for thought about our own actions I also think it takes away from the horror of someone who has been truly emotionally abused. Same as putting a child who is spanked with a bare hand in the same category as a child who is physically abused, or a woman who is whistled at on the street in the same category as a woman who is viciously raped.

 

I most certainly did not and have not, here or elsewhere, simplified the term "abuse" to that level. I just a few posts above described it as encompassing a continuum, at one end of which is your average occasional snappishness at your spouse or children, say. I said that in that instance, that moment, is "abusive." But whether it constitutes ABUSE is contingent on other factors--e.g., is this the way the person ALWAYS treats his spouse and children, and if told that it's hurtful and destructive, does he discount those feelings and persist? Then we might have some abusive tendencies going on, but that guy won't end up in jail for them. He just might find himself with a divorce and kids who either hate him or are afraid of him.

 

Please, read what I have said more closely.

[jen1447]

I actually think the parameters are pretty easy to understand, if more difficult to demonstrate a lot of the time. Here's part of the text I quoted above again -

 

As noted above, child abuse is a crime that encompasses a variety of behaviors involving physical, emotional, or sexual mistreatment or neglect upon a child. State child abuse laws define child abuse as any act (or failure to act) that:

 

1. Results in imminent risk or serious harm to a child's health and welfare due to physical, emotional, or sexual abuse;
   
2. affects a child (typically under the age of 18);
   
3. by a parent or caregiver who is responsible for the child's welfare.
   

 

In most states, the harm must have been inflicted by non-accidental means. This includes intentional acts, actions that were careless (such as, allowing a known sexual offender or known abuser to be with a child alone), and acts of negligence (such as, leaving a child under a certain age at home alone). Also, the "harm" inflicted upon a child need not be actual, but may include "threats" or "risks of imminent harm".

 

That seems to cover it pretty well. We can see forex that "imminent risk of serious harm" would rule out these instances of one-offs or momentary losses of control in terms of snapping at a kid. You'd have to further define "serious harm" (which I'm sure most states do in detail), but I think most psychologists agree that disabling damage to a child's self esteem qualifies as serious harm.

 

(Not sure if you're in the US Green but most likely the law is even more stringent elsewhere, like say the UK.)

[GunslingerRoland]

I most certainly did not and have not, here or elsewhere, simplified the term "abuse" to that level. I just a few posts above described it as encompassing a continuum, at one end of which is your average occasional snappishness at your spouse or children, say. I said that in that instance, that moment, is "abusive." But whether it constitutes ABUSE is contingent on other factors--e.g., is this the way the person ALWAYS treats his spouse and children, and if told that it's hurtful and destructive, does he discount those feelings and persist? Then we might have some abusive tendencies going on, but that guy won't end up in jail for them. He just might find himself with a divorce and kids who either hate him or are afraid of him.

 

Please, read what I have said more closely.

 

 

I don't think we are necessarily disagreeing in the way you seem to think we are. Like I said, it's something that you can't quantify. If you say 10 means things you are abusive, but if you say 9 it's not. It is grey, but it doesn't mean you can't always tell the difference when it is actually abuse.

 

 

And like others have said, very rarely do abusers ALWAYS treat the person they are abusing badly. Otherwise I totally agree with you. And the situations you describe in your first post do sound like abuse to me.