Posted by alexandra_k on January 4, 2006, at 19:26:19
In reply to Re: Do me a favour? » alexandra_k, posted by James K on January 4, 2006, at 18:27:10
Hey. That was a good link :-)
Over here... (New Zealand) we have this thing called ACC (Accident Compensation) or similar.
Basically... Employers pay a levy to ACC (and maybe employees too, I'm not too sure). Then if you have a claim against your employer because of injury then the claim is with ACC (the government) instead of your being required to sue your employer for compensation.
ACC payouts... Are less than a successful lawsuit against a multi billion dollar company to be sure. But ACC claims do not require lawers, merely forms.
And sexual abuse... Is something that is also covered by ACC. So... Individuals are not sued for sexual abuse. There is an ACC claim and I do believe... It is up to the government to decide whether the individual will be prosecuted by the crown or not (though I might be wrong on this).
Most cases... Aren't tried. Or maybe the victim gets some say... I'm not too sure. But... You can get $$$ towards councelling / psychological treatment, medical treatment etc.
But what that means...
When you go to see a councellor...
They ask you about your ACC eligibility.
I have had councellors be fairly insistent that I surely *must* have been sexually abused in virtue of my dx.I think...
It is borderline whether it counts as sexual abuse or not... I don't think it helps me to view what happened as 'sexual abuse'... But... Well... I would be able to see a councellor if I was prepared to say 'yes I have been sexually abused'. But... I am not prepared to do that. And... I resent the system that makes it *easy* (comparatively) to get assistence so long as you say you have been sexually abused...
Of course... I think it is appropriate in cases of sexual abuse. But I do not think it is appropriate to ask outright without the client being the first to volounteer the information. I don't know. No harm in asking I guess... But *persistent* asking... Well... It does warn me off the therapist I'll admit. And I think that is probably a good thing.
Ian Hacking (in the link I provided above) talks a lot about the history of the concept of 'sexual abuse'.
These days... The concept covers a lot of ground... In the past... Not so much. Not nearly so much.
It used to be the case... That forcing ones wife to have sex was not considered sexual assault, sexual abuse, or rape. It was considered absurd to suggest that one could rape ones wife because wives were supposed to be there for their husbands to have sex with whenever they pleased.
Was it harmful? No doubt it was in some instances. But not all harmful things are considered to be sexual abuse...
Same with 'bad touching'
Same with 'sexual harrassment'Same with physical abuse.
Currently... Well... Depends where you live I suppose. Is spanking your child physical abuse? Times are changing...When the concept covers a restricted range of cases initially... Then is extended to cover a broader range of cases...
Well... Of course prevalence rates are going to go up.
Thats why they played around with the dx criteria for DID. At one point in time the criteria did not include the 'missing time' (amnesia) requirement. I think I might be wrong... But I do believe that was either DSM III or DSM III-TR. The amnesia requirement was reintroduced (in DSM IV I think) in order to...
...Curb the dramatic increase in the number of individuals diagnosed with the disorder.
If things that we currently consider sexual abuse (ie bad touching, sexual harrassment) were not considered sexual abuse in the past...
Then these wouldn't have been reported on or commented on quite the way they are now.
So of course the reported number of cases is on the rise as the concept applies to more and more things...
What is interesting...
Is how much people were harmed by those things in the past.
Maybe the harm was just as it is now...
Or maybe... Viewing those things as 'terrible horrible crimes' encourages... People to see themselves as victims (hence to experience outrage etc at the perpetrators) etc.
I think...
There may be some truth in that...
poster:alexandra_k
thread:594922
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/psycho/20051229/msgs/595269.html