Webb Therapy Uncategorized Three rules for identifying abnormal child sexual behaviours

Three rules for identifying abnormal child sexual behaviours

| Mitchell WebbMitchell Webb| 0 Comment |
Categories:

Retrieved and edited 06/12/2021 from “Voice of Experience: Three rules for identifying abnormal child sexual behaviors” by Gregory K. Moffatt, a veteran counsellor with more than 30 years experience. If you are a survivor of sexual trauma at any age, I encourage you not to read this article.

From the perspective of Moffatt’s professional experience, childhood sexual behaviours can be grouped into three categories: 1. normal behaviours, 2. behaviours that are not normal but not unusual, and 3. behaviours that are abnormal or statistically rare. For the purpose of this post, I will be replacing the word “normal” with “natural” and/or “common” moving forward.


Rule No. 1: Natural or common sexual behaviours in children are never forced. The exploration is mutual. While one child likely had the idea first, both children must participate freely. This doesn’t mean that two children might willingly agree to engage in abnormal sexual behaviours, however, therefore read the next to rules for clarification.


Rule No. 2: Natural or common sexual behaviours in children are never painful. Children who behave within cultural and developmental norms will stop what they are doing when they realise they have caused pain.


Rule No. 3: Natural or common sexual behaviour in children is never invasive. Natural childhood curiosity does not include inserting objects or one’s own body parts into the cavities of others — anus, vagina, mouth, etc.


I’m unsure why Moffatt didn’t make this a 4th rule – he did add that most of the time, this type of childhood behaviour occurs between children of similar age. It is highly unusual for a young child to sexually engage with a teen without violating one of the three rules above. That behaviour definitely calls for further investigation. And, certainly, any sexual interaction between an adult and a child is cause for mandated reporting.

Related Post

The continued differential treatment of mental illness and addiction compared to physical illness by broader society is rooted in several factors:The continued differential treatment of mental illness and addiction compared to physical illness by broader society is rooted in several factors:

| Mitchell WebbMitchell Webb| 0 Comment|
Historical Context

Historically, mental illness and addiction have been misunderstood and stigmatized. For much of history, these conditions were seen as moral failings or character flaws rather than medical issues. This has led to a persistent stigma that continues to influence societal attitudes.

Lack of Awareness and Education

There is still a significant lack of awareness and education about mental health and addiction. Many people do not understand that these conditions are medical issues that require treatment, just like physical illnesses. This lack of understanding contributes to negative attitudes and discrimination.

Media Representation

Media often portrays mental illness and addiction in a negative light, reinforcing stereotypes and misconceptions. These portrayals can shape public perception and contribute to the stigma surrounding these conditions.

Criminalization

Addiction, in particular, has been heavily criminalised. This has led to a perception of addiction as a criminal issue rather than a health issue, further entrenching stigma and discrimination.

Internalised Stigma

Individuals with mental illness or addiction often internalise the stigma they experience, leading to feelings of shame and low self-worth. This can prevent them from seeking help and support, perpetuating the cycle of stigma and discrimination.

Healthcare System

Even within the healthcare system, biases and stigma can affect the quality of care provided to individuals with mental illness or addiction. This can lead to inadequate treatment and support, further exacerbating the issue.

Social and Cultural Factors

Social and cultural factors also play a role in how mental illness and addiction are perceived. Different cultures have varying attitudes towards these conditions, which can influence how they are treated and supported.

The differential treatment of treatment-resistant substance use disorder (SUD) and treatment-resistant cancer by society can be attributed to several factors:

1. Perception of Control

Substance use disorders are often perceived as a result of personal choices or moral failings, whereas cancer is seen as an uncontrollable disease. This perception leads to stigma and blame towards individuals with SUD, while those with cancer are more likely to receive sympathy and support.

2. Historical Stigma

Historically, substance use has been stigmatised and criminalised, leading to a societal view that addiction is a choice rather than a medical condition. In contrast, cancer has been recognized as a medical condition requiring treatment and compassion.

3. Media Representation

Media often portrays substance use in a negative light, emphasising criminality and moral failure. Cancer, on the other hand, is often depicted with empathy and urgency, highlighting the need for medical intervention and support.

4. Healthcare System

The healthcare system has historically been more equipped to handle cancer treatment, with extensive research, funding, and specialized care. SUD treatment has lagged behind, with fewer resources and less comprehensive care options.

5. Complexity of Treatment

Treatment-resistant SUD involves complex psychological, social, and biological factors, making it challenging to treat effectively. Cancer treatment resistance, while also complex, has seen significant advancements in research and technology, leading to more effective treatments.

6. Social and Cultural Factors

Cultural attitudes towards substance use and addiction vary widely, with some societies viewing it as a personal failing. Cancer is generally viewed more universally as a disease that requires medical intervention.

REFERENCES

Substance Use Disorder and Stigma

Australian Government Department of Health and Aged Care. (2024). Initiatives and programs. Retrieved from https://www.health.gov.au/about-us/what-we-do/initiatives-and-programs

Morrison, A. P., Birchwood, M., Pyle, M., Flach, C., Stewart, S. L. K., Byrne, R., Patterson, P., Jones, P. B., Fowler, D., & Gumley, A. I. (2013). Impact of cognitive therapy on internalised stigma in people with at-risk mental states. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 203(2), 140-145. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.bp.112.112110

Wood, L., Byrne, R., Burke, E., Enache, G., & Morrison, A. P. (2017). The impact of stigma on emotional distress and recovery from psychosis: The mediatory role of internalised shame and self-esteem. Retrieved from https://repository.essex.ac.uk/21927/1/woodpr2017.pdf

Cancer Treatment and Stigma

American Cancer Society. (2023). Cancer treatment and survivorship. Retrieved from https://www.cancer.org/treatment/treatments-and-side-effects.html

National Cancer Institute. (2022). Cancer treatment (PDQ)–Patient version. Retrieved from https://www.cancer.gov/types/treatment-pdq/patient/cancer-treatment-pdq

World Health Organization. (2021). Cancer treatment and palliative care. Retrieved from https://www.who.int/cancer/prevention/diagnosis-screening/cancer-treatment-palliative-care/en/

Read MoreRead More

Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind.Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind.

| Mitchell WebbMitchell Webb| 0 Comment|

Human-Kind. Isn’t that lovely. We have moved away from the patriarchal term mankind – ‘man’ who has not always been ‘kind’, necessarily – toward equality between the sexes and acknowledging gender fluidity. Noah touches on this. If you’re interested in the evolution of humanity and how we are capable of co-operating as a global community, give this book a go. You may experience information overload – but when condensing 2.4 million years into less than 500 pages, Harari goes alright. I’m someone who didn’t pay attention to history at school so I found this book enlightening, empowering and also disheartening at times. Harari writes about the breakthroughs of the Cognitive, Agricultural and Scientific Revolutions. The power of human imagination, math and language has been instrumental in the development of humankind into an apex predator, and the destruction of everything else.

Read MoreRead More

When our intelligent and necessary emotion – ANGER – becomes unhealthy and damagingWhen our intelligent and necessary emotion – ANGER – becomes unhealthy and damaging

| Mitchell WebbMitchell Webb| 0 Comment|

The function of anger is to protect vulnerability and neutralize threat.

The threat humans cognitively perceive is almost always to the ego i.e., how we want to think of ourselves and have others think of us. Anger neutralizes ego-threat by devaluing, demeaning, or undermining the “power” of the person perceived to be threatening. Humans get angry when they don’t get what they want, when they’re disrespected, or when they perceive something is unjust/unfair. Anger, the emotion, is a chemical messenger. It communicates to us, to others, and motivates us to act, speak, do something. Healthy responses to anger include being assertive, feeling empowered, protecting ourselves and love ones from ACTUAL threat, setting boundaries with others, and making social change for justice (for example). It becomes unhealthy when we become passive-aggressive, violent, vengeful, spiteful, aggressive, resentful, sarcastic, “moody”, rude etc.

Receive the message and respond from a wise, calm place after the intensity of the emotion has past. Sometimes we have to act in the moment. Our ancestors may have required this for fight/flight survival. These days, we can generally PAUSE and calm the self before responding from a mindful and compassionate heart and mind. Remember: Hurt people, hurt people.

Read MoreRead More