SEXUAL ABUSE

America is in the midst of a long overdue confrontation of sexual abuse: rape, child molestation, incest, sexual harassment in the workplace, etc. Much attention is finally being given to extremely significant issues which have far reaching consequences in both public and private life. The positive values of this movement are beyond question. Facing these social and personal problems is certainly a belatedly good phenomenon.

There are, however, potentially dangerous side effects of this otherwise positive move in America. This is an attempt to look toward the impact of the movement on other unfaced American problems in regard to sex. First, I note three major problems which remain largely unfaced in America: 1) The limitations and negative results of our overall attempt to deal with the powerful forces of human sexuality primarily through repressive means: negative legislation, social judgment, and religious condemnation. We cope by trying to sweep sex under the rug and make it bad in all but the most restricted of circumstances and relationships. Obvious results include a) exaggerating the power of what is repressed--making sex a powerful tool for use in control, manipulation, and selling; and b) promoting false guilt about an essential element in human capacity, losing the path of sexuality as an approach to love and transcendence.

2) Projection of the power of sexuality; this is the typically male version of the primary problem noted above. Males are trained and supported in sexual irresponsibility. We repress our own sexuality by projecting its power onto females who we then see as "turning us on (or off)." A recent male rapist who also hacked up his victim with a machete excused himself to the judge: "I had to do it; she was too pretty." A child molester explained his reprehensible behavior to his victim: "If you weren't so pretty, I wouldn't have to do this."

Aside from convict-able crimes, law-abiding males projecting the power of their own sexuality commonly believe that females "make them horny." Among the dangerous results are males left without experience in containing, controlling, and positively utilizing the power of their own genetic sexual heritage; we often exist as naive pawns, dictated by what in reality is one of the most powerful components of who-we-are.

Losing awareness of our own sexuality through such projections leaves us with two ironic illusions: first, lacking the awareness which would come with responsible experience, we are like dogs chasing speeding cars; we, being able to act irresponsibly, easily get exaggerated notions of our own sexual prowess. Practice with females "driving away," trains us to think we are all super-charged studs--sexual supermen.

Even more ironic and devastating in the long run, we consequently over-identify with our seemingly all-powerful sexual impulses and the bodies which produce them "automatically." We come to believe, to live-as-though, even when we consciously think otherwise, that "it" is I;--that our penises are who-we-are. When "it is up," we believe that "I am powerful;" when "it is down" and we "can't get it up," we are personally devastated, as though any sexual impotence threatens who-we-are as persons.

Another result is the excessive power handed to females who are often ill-prepared to handle it positively. Instead of being given the freedom to explore their own sexuality, they are burdened, almost from birth, with the responsibility for a power not their own.

3) Conscious denial of sexuality; this, most often, is the female version of the number one problem of overall public mode of coping through repression. Thrust so early into the sexual arena by the unfair projections of males, almost all females learn to cope through the most primal of all psychic defenses, namely, denial. They wisely, at early ages, learn to deal with the excessive responsibility and power thrust upon them by repressing the entire subject into their unconscious minds; they understandably sweep it under the mental rug, pushing it out of awareness, hoping perhaps that the bugaboo will thereby be gone. They "just don't think about it." At first, of course, denial is a pragmatic mental device for surviving in a dangerous situation. The long range consequences, however, are spiritually devastating.

Results include an exaggerated sense of their own powers and responsibility. A consistent confession of females currently daring to recall (un-repress) their own early sexual victimization, all too often by their fathers and relatives, includes a sense of personal guilt based on the belief that "somehow I caused it to happen." Accepting the total weight of what in reality was primarily a male responsibility, such females are naturally short-circuited in becoming conscious of their own sexuality. From earliest ages the burden of male sexuality easily diverts females from the responsibility and delight of facing and accepting their own.

A secondary result of accepting male projections and denying one's own sexuality is the common female depersonalization of their own bodies, as revealed in such expressions as: "He doesn't love me; he just wants my body," or in such unexpressed wondering: "...but will he love me in the morning (something males never think about)." Conscious "disembodiment"--body as tool rather than self, an "object" to be shaped, adorned, painted, perfumed, and utilized in accomplishing personal goals--is the almost inevitable result of females falling for male projections.

An American female who is not "embarrassed about 'her' body (this or that is 'too big' or 'too small')"--as though it were a possession of herself as separate from it, is about as rare as an American male who is not so excessively identified with his body that he thinks "a woman doesn't love him if she doesn't want to touch him."

These three major American problems, with the noted, plus other consequences, are also impacted by the current confrontation of sexual abuse. It is these potentially bad side-effects on our unfaced problems which I wish to confront here. The values of facing and changing longstanding abuses are certainly affirmed prior to this consideration. It could only properly be made on the heels of what is now going on. Certainly no opposition to the present focus is intended or implied. This is not at all about the confrontations currently happening in America--what is now being seen, but rather looks toward other possible abuses not yet seen by the public--potentially harmful side-effects of the positive move to halt sexual abuse in America.

1. Continuation of current problems resulting from overall repression of sexuality in America (Number One noted above); including the identification of sex and evil, the judgment of normal male impulses often underlying abusive behavior, the exaggerations which any repression brings, etc. The prevailing pattern of dealing with the power of sex by social repression is enforced and continued.

2. Affirmation of female as victim and male as victimizer ("perpetrator"); denial of positive female powers as well as the receptive elements of female sexuality.

3. Implication that all childhood sexual activity and exploration is inherently evil since most evidences are illegal; continuation of total absence of any guidance of children in embracing their own sexuality prior to puberty. Any overt adult guidance is effectively ruled out; children are left in total darkness with a powerfully evident part of their selfhood. In labeling all early sexual activity as negative (abuse, molestation, evils of "playing with yourself," etc.) we may unwittingly throw out the baby (sex) with the bath water (misuse of sex), doing a long run damage even greater then the abuse itself. In the current conscious-making wave in America, a needed and valuable part of health-making, I see absolutely nothing even vaguely related to social acceptance of childhood sexuality or any place for an adult part in guiding/introducing this essential element of self. The positive values: stopping physical/emotional violence of abuse, rape, bullying, demanded silence--which support the current stance of evilness of sex; also conscious-making as essential in becoming oneself--that is, value of remembering (literal: re-membering = getting member back).

4. Denial of any positive elements in the abusive events; they are commonly treated as though they are totally traumatic and destructive, without any positive values whatsoever. The assumption of "evil/bad" over the whole experience invites: denial/repression of valid sexual awakenings in even bad overall experiences; sets up enemy/innocent syndrome: blaming other, complete projection of own sexual impulses; shift of real awakened sexual power from present positive use into retribution, revenge, and aggressive violence on part of "victim." The power itself, awakened aggression, is misplaced in a reversal of roles. He first/she second. The whole issue of real sexual power embraced may get perverted in understandable revenge quests. "Making them admit it (Paula Jones syndrome)" easily cloaks complicity (what the "victim" got/achieved in the experience, such as: favors, power, intimacy, treatment as person versus kid, taking mother's place--relieving sexual pressure on wife, pleasure, etc.). Such revenge efforts easily undercut the natural healing process of owning-knowing. The power of I-know is wasted in trying to force the other to know for me.

In the assumption of "bad" inevitably, if anything is even remotely sexually related--from stimulating affection, touching, feeling sexual, occurred, it was automatically "traumatic" (bad). All language about such events is limited to negative (victim, perpetrator, etc.) There is no consideration of any legitimate introduction to sexuality; all introduction is bad, from parent to stranger; there is no OK space for sexual play. No consideration is given to legitimate female initiation (becoming conscious about sex). Female separation of affection ("love") from sex is perpetuated--that is, something is only "affection" or "love" if no sexual stimulation occurs; if it is sexually stimulating, it is "not real love."

5. All complicity, any possible female co-responsibility, is categorically denied.

6. Potential female consciousness of their own sexuality (Number Three problem noted above), is even enforced during periods of un-repression--that is, recalling traumatic sexual events. Inevitably the power of the events is projected onto the males (adults) involved. Although the female becomes aware of the event, immediately the other party is "blamed." Any possible concurrent awareness of her own sexuality experienced during the event tends to be even further repressed.

7. Potentially redemptive elements of male experience in the abusive events tend to be totally negated. For instance, male repression of their own sexuality, especially with adults, is sometimes explored with children where frightened and repressed males feel safer. In the social focus on the illegality of such explorations, any possibly positive responsible embracing of the "perpetrator's" fledgling sexuality is apt to be completely negated.

8. Any real female guilt in situations labeled as abusive is apt to be quickly glossed over in face of the more pressing issue of establishing the guilt of the male; consequently, "victims" may be unduly tempted to self-righteousness and the evasion of any personal guilt even as they are freed from the false guilt of repression. Release from the false guilt of repression of memory may come at the greater expense of a deeper repression of real guilt.

9. Development of covert female powers which might be enhanced through consciousness are often repressed even further in conscious identification with the victim role. Awareness of the potential strengths of the "victim" as well as the weaknesses of the "victimizer" tend to be lost even more than before.

10. The deep-seated male fear of impotence, cloaked in fantasies of sexual omnipotence, resulting from projection of personal sexual powers onto females who "turn them on (See Number Two problem above)," tends to be perpetuated in the current modes of confronting the abuse phenomenon. The popular male defenses, when confronted with their deeds: "She wore provocative clothes," "She wanted it," etc., tend to encourage further male repression of both their own powers and limitations.

11. Therapy observations: Because all childhood sexual experience with adults is currently seen as "molestation," etc.--that is, illegal and socially condemned--any individual involved, "victim" or "victimizer," must first face and deal with the social labels. How we have been trained to think is the first level to be unrepressed in becoming conscious. For a female, this normally means confronting her assumed "victimization," ceasing to deny or blame herself. "It happened; he did it to me." For the male, it means confronting the responsibility for "I did it," accepting the fact of the social evil and his own guilt for breaking social codes.

But deeper, below the level of social evil, other issues must be faced before therapy is completed. "Victim" and Perpetrator" are only the beginning. For "victims" this usually includes some elements of complicity or positive experience along with the obvious abusive components--such as, power experienced, personal affirmation in being so desired, and, as one Victim voiced it after a long period of becoming conscious about how terrorized she had been at the time, "...I hate to admit this, but some part of me liked it too." The female's latent sexuality--self-as-sexual--is yet to be faced after all appropriate revenge efforts, such as, forcing him to admit what he did, getting even, and making him pay. Past the pain, these three personal issues are predictable: self-affirmation (somebody saw me as an individual, no matter how negative the events were); personal power experienced, and possibly some elements of personal pleasure.

For the Perpetrator, after withdrawing his projections ("She was too pretty," "She wanted it," etc.), and facing the guilt of "I did it," he is likely to confront--should his courage continue, such issues as: self-as-more-than-penis; that is, his unembraced capacity for responsibly owning and containing the powers of his own sexuality; and the inherent personal power in the fuller scope of his own lust-ability, past all its social judgments and dangers.

12. On the connection between Victim and Femininity: At its most primal level, femininity and receptivity are synonymous; nothing is more purely female, on the genetic level, than being a receiver--womb as repository for sperm. Woman, the bearer of womb, is also womb-like at this primary biological level. She "takes it." Contrary to popular male illusions, she doesn't "put out"--that is his role in the reproductive drama; rather she "takes in," first his penis, then his sperm.

After this, she waits. First, for conception--for ovum and sperm to connect; then for cells to divide, fetus to develop; then for an appropriate time of delivery--neither of which she "can do anything about." In other words, femaleness is, at this deeper level, about "taking it," and "not doing anything about it." Paradoxically, in such receptivity, while she may "look like" a victim, she is actually victorious. Only through her effective receptivity does she succeed in her part of the Reproduction Drama. The sperm, which is only victorious in out-performing his 399 million competitors in reaching the ovum, must then become the "loser;" he must give up his entire identity and be engulfed into the massive ovum; he must "lose himself" or he fails in his own co-role in the Act of Procreation.

Next, after delivery, her receiving role phases into a serving role; she is nourisher. She "takes care of" the baby; best, when she fulfills its every need, literally. "Serving others" is also inherent in the instincts of femininity. The point is, past appearances femininity becomes "victorious" through receptivity. A woman is most her biological self when she completely and successfully "takes it," "waits," and thereafter "takes care of it." However, these very elements of primal femininity are the same ones which are identified with the role of "victim." The typical victim "just takes it," doesn't "do anything about it (usually doesn't even tell anyone)," and often "takes care of" the "victimizer" at the same time.

Where, in this deeper process, does a good biological female, who inherently loves who-she-is as receiver, who is only "victorious" through her receptivity (including taking, waiting, and tending), become a "victim"? Where is the line between woman-as-receiver and woman-as-victim?

13. A fourth major American problem with sex becomes relevant in answering this question: The problem is, females and males trapped in stage one of our genetic development, fearful of moving on to stage two. Stage one for females is attracting the male, best seen in "beautifying;" stage one for males, correspondingly, is winning the female, getting the girl, "beating out the competition."

Stage two normally involves Receptivity for the female, and Penetration for the male. After attracting the "sperm-bearer" to herself, she must receive him into herself. After pursuing the "ovum-maker," he must enter her. Then, after one of the millions of competing Sperm reaches the goal of the Ovum, "she" must receive "him" and "he" must penetrate "her."

From Attractor she must change to Receiver; from Winner he must change to Penetrator. Perhaps the evolution would be easy enough, except for the fact that each must give up, let go of, "who-they-were" before, risking, as it were, the completely new unknown called Conception.

No longer can she remain as "Little Miss Muffet," sitting "on her tuffet, eating her curds and whey," a charming virgin Princess waiting for the most handsome Prince in all the realm. All of a sudden her virginic lifetime is at stake: she must face the threat of "losing her beauty"--her cherry-like self, and taking this total stranger into who-she-is--perhaps to risk turning into a prune instead.

And he, at his moment of greatest victory, just when he has won out over millions of competitors--facing eternal life rather than certain death, must again risk losing all. The triumphant trophy-bearer must now lay victory aside and plunge into the huge engulfing ovum. Eternal life, it turns out, lies only through the path of apparent total loss of self. If he is to truly live, he must first risk dying to his old self. Rebirth is only through absorption; what a challenge!

And we who have evolved to bear the sperm and ovum face similar challenges which we do not commonly seem up to. For females, remaining the Attracting Princess, virginic versus "spoiled," must seem far safer. Instead of risking the progression toward transformation into a Receiver, redoubling efforts at further beautification is sorely tempting. Few, it seems, are able to resist.

And Prince-like males, experienced at the challenges of knighthood--competing with fellow-knights, predictably turn away from the threat of losing themselves in personified ova, the engulfing wombs of womanhood. Searching for other challenges, new worlds to conquer, must seem much safer than risking the death which, according to the biological script, must precede resurrection into new life.

So what we mostly find, rather than Attracting Females evolving into Receiving Women, and Competing Males becoming Reigning Men, are overaged Princesses and grown men still acting like Little Princes. More specifically: females who love inviting reception (beautifying) but are afraid of receiving their callers; and males who love getting the girl but are afraid of women.

The pragmatic functions of beauty and competing become compulsive escapes from the next steps in the Reproductive Drama, namely, taking-it for the female, and losing-it for the male. Instead, the Victim/Perpetrator Syndrome provides an easy way out from the challenges of going on.

Ideally, and in reality, the female becomes "victorious" through what appears as "being taken." The apparently helpless victim, just waiting to be taken, becomes triumphant in the very act of "losing" her virginity--that is, when Attracting-one becomes Penetrated-one, the "victim" becomes the "victor." Conversely, when the victorious male succeeds in "winning the virgin," in the very act of piercing her the Penetrating-one becomes the Losing-one. Just as the erection "goes away" at the victorious moment of ejaculation, so the male "loses himself" as he "makes the kill."

Literally, she "wins" by losing; he "loses" by winning. Unless the ovum truly becomes the receiver, and the sperm risks death in being taken in, both die. The un-pierced ovum and the un-received sperm "pass on." The end. But, when ideals prevail, the receiving-ovum and the engulfed-sperm are both empowered. Paradoxically, and contrary to the appearance of things, there is immense power in receptivity (receive-ability) for the female, and in "giving-up" (lose-ability) for the male.

But when females get trapped in the Attracting stage, Act One of the Drama of Reproduction, the potential victory through becoming an apparent victim is lost. Instead, the trapped female becomes truly victimized. Unable to accept the inherent power of receptivity, her own capacity for "taking it," such a female loses her larger femininity. "Taking it" becomes a curse rather than the blessing it potentially is. De-feminized, at least frozen in the process of greater femininity, these Perpetual-Princesses, virgin-like victims, typically become Bitches, engaged in continual efforts to "get even" or emasculate men for what they have "done to me," or else into Patsys, pretending to continually "give in" to males.

Males, likewise trapped in the Competing stage, their part in Act One, flee from the apparent loss-of-self through engulfment. Instead of risking losing, they become victimizers. Unable, or too fearful, to chance absorption, they flee in exaggerated masculinity; "machoism," it may be called. Paralleling the trapped Princess's escape into bitchiness, the trapped Prince, still competing after the race is won, predictably turns into a Son of a Bitch--the male counterpart, or, worse still, into a Wimp.

14. Other unexamined issues: Accepted sexual repression as inherently good; nonscious making--female repression, male projection.

15. Issue of trust-breaking assumes that betrayal is bad and that blind trust is good. This ignores the appropriate childhood agenda of confronting the illusion of omnipotent (trustworthy) adults.

16. The gender-problem: for male, sex/love are connected; for female, sex and love are disconnected. If a male is affectionate he feels sexual; not so, it appears, for a female. Therefore, in "ruling out of sex" through our current approach to abuse, we unwittingly rule out affection for the male, but not for the female. In fact, we further split the two for the female.

17. Fortunately for men, at least in the long run, rape and molestation are illegal. Men have outside forces to help protect us from ourselves, not to mention women. Unfortunately for women, emotional rape and molestation are socially acceptable. No laws protect females from the abuses of the covert powers of tears and fears gone rampant.

But all women who use the covert power of sorrow and fear aren't necessarily "mean," anymore than are many men accused of rape and molestation; often the naivete of each, combined with the incredible urge toward conscious wholeness, results in the daily tragedies resulting from our innocent projections on each other.

18. Female "fear of flying" = letting go, being out of control of instinctual powers, is projected. Why girls don't tell about early "molestations": 60% real fear (this is first to become conscious in therapy); 40% secret enjoyment of self-affirmation, first personification by male, secret joy in sexual awakening, secret power (to gain attention, affection, favors; plus beginning fun of "feeling like a woman." These latter elements are only confronted after the real fear, if ever.

19. On Female abuse: NASTY AND NICE. The overall issue of abuse is largely focused on males, particularly on sexuality; female abuse is generally overlooked, at least by females. One reason is that most female values are, with good reason, socially affirmed--for instance, peace, cooperation, "niceness," togetherness, commitment, security, soft emotions (the only ones called "being emotional"), monogamy, and relatively non-sexual behavior.

Conversely, most male values are problematic to established societies, and hence viewed as negative: war, aggression, aloneness (valued in hunting only); controlled emotions (especially the soft emotions), polygamy, risk taking, being highly sexual (which is nearly all "bad" except with wife and at her discretion). Social negation (repression) of sexuality is focused on the prime component of maleness. In this context, in order to see both types of abuse, male and female, we may note these differences:

MALE ---- FEMALE

A. Verbal abuse ---- A. Non-verbal abuse
B. Physical abuse ---- B. Emotional abuse
C. Sexual abuse ---- C. Chaste abuse

A. Male forms: name-calling, arguing, accusing, pressing for reasonable conclusions. Female forms: silent-treatment; refusal of subjects, especially sexual subjects (male's favorite) in conversation; refusal of word definition (making words solid, like "left/right"; refusal of thought rules (reason/logic); threat in use of "bad" words: no "dirty words or sex jokes"; no kidding (verbal aggression); e.g.: "If you call me names, I'll go." "I won't talk to you if you argue." (Note: Comparisons not finished before I moved on.)

Back To Index