Tag Archives: victimization

Part II – Fragile Ego, Fierce Predator: Brief Psychological Overview of the Psychologically Violent Personality’s use of Shame and Guilt

31 Monday Mar 2014

Posted by in Domestic Violence, Personality Disorders, Psychological Abuse, Stalking and Predator Behavior, Victim rescue & Recovery

≈ 5 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

~by Amy Lynn Burch

Published on March 31, 2014 @ 8:23pm EST

“One concrete way in which we all landscape our sanity is by having our experience of reality confirmed by others. When our experience of reality is disconfirmed by others, our confidence in our own sanity can be undermined.” ~Graeme Galton, Forensic Aspects of Dissociative Identity Disorder

 

An emotional bully will exploit trust at every possible turn. In fact, exploiting trust is their primary method of control. They demand trust without question and then use the victim’s trust against them in order to gain power. They demand absolute trust while simultaneously refusing accountability in terms of proving trustworthiness. They feel obliged to gain every advantage over their victims without providing anything in terms of equity to their targets. If at risk of exposure, and then cornered, the psychologically violent personality will flatly refuse to answer direct questions in which they must admit the truth, sometimes ignoring and redirecting the conversation entirely. Not that redirection, in and of itself is inherently bad. Redirection is often a useful tool for the average non-diabolical personality to steer away from uncomfortable topics. However, for the psychologically violent personality, redirection is a combative tactic. Better stated, they are offended by and refuse to acknowledge inconvenient questions, an utterly diabolical move which exposes the liar without so much as a word of corroboration on the part of the abuser.

It isn’t uncommon for the bully to demand trust from their victims while shaming and blaming them for exhibiting rightful distrust of the abuser. The mere act of suggesting to the bully that his or her exploitative behavior is wrong tends to send the bully on a full frontal assault of sorts against their targets using shaming and manipulative language against their target(s) in order to put them on the defensive. If they can keep their victim(s) on the defensive then the abuser maintains power and control over the situation. The bully may use a combination of overt and covert shaming messages such as:

“You really need to get over your trust issues.”

“Why are you so suspicious and paranoid all the time?”

“I can’t talk to you when you get like this!”

Emotional bullies fail miserably at making the connection between their own deceptive behaviors and abject lack of honesty with their victim’s legitimate issues of trust. It cannot be overstated that bullies believe that they deserve absolute trust without question regardless of how many times they’ve deliberately betrayed their victim’s trust boundaries. They do not understand that trust is a byproduct of honesty and that where there is no honesty there can be no trust. This truth applies to all relationships including, but not limited to: business; romantic; and parent-to-child relationships. It is primarily parent-to-child relationships that we will focus on for the next two postings, current posting included.

Beyond The Mask of Sanity

Similar to Munchhausen by Proxy in which the perpetrator is desperate for admiration at the expense of ones child’s health and well-being, emotionally abusive parents are often desperate to appear to the general public as saintly and long suffering. This also applies to the emotionally violent intimate partner. In truth, these so-called upstanding model parents and mates are often the most heinous of abusers. The most devious are often mothers who see their children as an inconvenience and/or merely as tools used to gain sympathy. The mother whose motivation to have children is so that someone will love her is a red flag indicator of a potential emotional/physical abuser.

The emotional bully’s oversensitivity makes her an emotionally, and sometimes physically violent predator. She is typically motivated by two things: revenge for perceived wrongs; and getting her own way in every situation no matter how trivial. Everything is a contest and they simply must win. When boundaries are imposed on the emotional abuser they turn their focus to seeking revenge at any cost. It isn’t uncommon for the abuser to fake changed behavior even for long periods of time in order to accomplish their goal of evening the score against their target. They will often set out on elaborate schemes which include mimicking sanity, compassion, kindness, sincerity, guilt, and remorse for the sole purpose of catching their intended target off guard so they can deliver the killing blow, so to speak.

No matter how remorseful an emotional bully appears to be on the surface their internal motivation remains unchanged. It is for this reason that an emotional bully should never be trusted. Their entire motivation for gaining and regaining their victims trust after it has been lost is so that they can continue to exploit their victims for their own selfish purposes. It isn’t uncommon for the emotional bully to openly shame their victim for having trust issues without ever acknowledging that their behavior is the cause behind the mistrust. Emotional bullies work very hard to make their prey look irrational to the outside world and openly blame their victims as though their concerns were somehow created in a vacuum (see Gaslighting for more information).

Tools of the Trade: Shame and Guilt

Imposing inappropriate shame and guilt as a means of control for not complying with demands is a common tactic of an emotional abuser and is routinely used against victims regardless of age. However, this tactic works particularly well against children, unfortunately, as abusers well know. Shaming messages are extraordinarily powerful and have a dramatic negative affect on children. However, children are not the only ones susceptible to such abuses. Kind, yet gullible, personalities which appear child-like and trusting regardless of biological age are a hot target for psychological abusers. This is one of the reasons why dominant personalities tend to seek-out compliant souls on which to perpetrate their diabolical abuses, because they know that they can emotionally manipulate the compliant personality into inappropriate guilt very easily.

Before I go any further it should be noted that not all guilt is bad. Guilt, in its proper place, is a necessary emotion designed to correct inappropriate behavior. For example, hurting someone for entertainment value should elicit feelings of guilt in the emotionally stable and well developed person. If it doesn’t then it indicates something deeply wrong within a person’s psyche along the lines of lack of empathy which is no minor deficit. It is true that children must learn empathy but most children understand this inherently with proper feelings of guilt the indicator.  Just as stealing a personal possession from another person should impose feelings of guilt, so too should inflicting verbal abuses at another person elicit feelings of guilt in an otherwise healthy person. Guilt in this scenario is designed to point out the wrong behavior to the wrongdoer for the purpose of correcting the behavior in the future. As regards childrearing, many young parents fail to understand the necessity of this emotion e.g., appropriate guilt, in raising their children and seek to save their children from all negative feelings which create a host of character flaws in developing children which could lead to full-blown psychological disorders as they mature. However, that is a topic for another blog post. It does, however, go hand in hand with some parents’ unintentionally nurturing narcissistic bullies who very likely could grow-up to be psychologically violent personalities. All in all that is a very simplified explanation of a complex emotion but the average person reading this will understand the concept. Emotional abusers refuse to accept guilt as a correcting tool as applied to themselves yet do not hesitate to use it as an inappropriately imposed tool of manipulation against others in order to get their own way.

Children of emotional bullies are at particular risk of enduring years of pervasive abuse with little if any outside intervention. Over time, an abused child will likely begin to accept the abuse as normal having nothing in terms of healthy examples by way of comparison. The risk to them is that as they mature they tend to seek our familiar relationships not unlike what they have experienced at home thereby inadvertently repeating the abuse. If left uncorrected, the child will carry the abusive dynamic into adulthood either as a repeat victim or as an abuser. In some cases, they become both dependant on the relationship in question.

“Don’t Criticize My Parenting Style”

Abusive parents and especially those who resort to emotional, psychological, and spiritual abuse have the power to isolate and dominate their children not only deliberately keeping them away from help but also using their children as a shield of sorts against accountability. Simply stated, egocentric, selfish, demanding, and callous people have absolutely no tolerance for providing children with proper nutrition, emotional stability, love, and safety or any provision of basic human needs because it detracts from their overall self-absorbed goals of unconditional admiration, attention, absolute control and dominance over their environment. Although there are some children who are difficult personalities from birth, emotionally abused children exhibit certain behaviors which, to the trained eye, point to an abusive home life.  Anyone who comes close to examining the truth of the matter behind a seemingly erratic child’s behavior is seen as an exposure risk to the abuser.

If the abuser cannot control and manipulate the questioning party then all ties are cut and the child who typically has no power in the relationship is kept away from those who might very well be able to intervene in, and then stop, the abuse. If confronted, the psychologically violent parent may lean on the excuse of having a different “parenting style” which shouldn’t be criticized. It is normal to some degree to not want to receive correction but the chronic avoidance of correction is a huge red flag that should not be ignored.

Work It, Own It, Utterly Annihilate It

When children are taught from their earliest development to accept emotionally abusive behavior, they will carry that tendency toward acceptance of bad behavior into adulthood thus inviting into their lives the very abuse which they’ve sought to escape. If a child is taught that it is their responsibility to take care of one or more parents feelings and wellbeing at the expense of their own then they will learn to devalue their own very real basic needs and then will chronically acquiesce to the demands of bullies. This is a form of learned helplessness which if instilled in a child during their early formative years and reinforced through coercion becomes ingrained before adulthood. Children are particularly vulnerable to this form of abuse. Most children naturally seek approval and acceptance of parents or other parental authority figures. Abusive parents waste no time exploiting this tendency, willfully using it to their advantage.

Emotionally abusive parents do not hesitate to use their children’s reactive behaviors as a shield against the underlying cause, e.g., sadistically insidiously psychologically abusive injury. Make no mistake: not all abuse leaves a physical mark and it is the abuse that occurs absent physical scarring that is often the most violently wielded by abusive personalities. For the abused, the wounds and scars are long-lasting which are compounded by the absence of physical proof, with abusers who remain unpunished for their crimes that typically remain in the victim’s life.

No Body, No Crime

Emotional abusers are cunning enough to never abuse their victims in the presence of others, at least not intentionally. The only known exceptions are those who abuse in the presence of fellow abusers or in the presence of weak personalities who will say nothing to preserve their own safety. Using spoken words as their primary tool of abuse offers the abuser the luxury of denial as a means of protection from responsibility when confronted. The simple act of denial coupled with a carefully structured exterior façade is all that is needed for an abuser to continue their psychologically violent assaults on their prey. They will either outright deny that an abusive conversation ever took place or will deliberately misremember the conversation to their advantage. Emotional abusers would rather rewrite history than to tell the truth and will omit entire events which they know will expose their behavior if admitted. They will disregard the conversation to others as “I can’t be responsible for how he/she chooses to hear information” or “I can’t be responsible for what you choose to feel” all the while knowing that their victim has the correct information without the power to prove what was said.

It is important to note that the very act of denial is confirmation that the abuser knows what they’ve done is wrong. Otherwise, why carefully omit the incriminating information entirely? They are cunning and diabolical enough to know that without an outside witness willing to corroborate the truth, all that are necessary to avoid responsibility and perpetuate the abuse is denial and silence. Again, although anyone can be a victim of this method of abuse, children are particularly susceptible and at risk for not being believed as a result of the cunningly abusive parent who can tailor the narrative in their own favor.

Next week we will continue to examine the psychologically violent personality as parent while transitioning to other issues within abusive relationships. I welcome your questions, comments, and even criticism as long as it’s respectful. As always, thank you for your readership. You are not alone.

~Amy

© Amy Lynn Burch 2014
All Rights Reserved
No part of this work or webpage or any of its contents may be reproduced, copied, modified or adapted, without the prior written consent of the author, unless otherwise indicated by the author for stand-alone materials.

Fragile Ego, Fierce Predator: the Psychologically Violent Personality

18 Saturday Jan 2014

Posted by in Domestic Violence, Psychological Abuse

≈ 4 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

~by Amy Lynn Burch

Published on January 18, 2014 @ 11:40pm EST

“The first time someone shows you who they are, believe them.” ~Maya Angelou

Emotional abusers never think they are. At least they never openly acknowledge that fact to anyone, not even themselves. Although emotional bullies may know it instinctively on a deeply intimate inner level, they predictably refuse to take an honest look at who they truly are and set about victimizing others for the purpose of personal validation and gratification. Hurting others isn’t merely entertaining for the emotional bully; it’s necessary to their very existence. Before you become wrapped around the axles, as it were, regarding my use of the word necessary let me clarify that necessary in this instance simply means “required behavior for the abuser to exist as such” and not “we need bullies in order to balance the universe” which is at the very least a ridiculous and nonsensical notion. Think of it in terms of the mythical vampire. Just as a vampire must drain life blood from their victims in order to exist, emotional bullies must drain their victim’s of energy, control, self-worth, autonomy, and personal validation in order to maintain dominant bully status. The word “boundary” isn’t in the bully vocabulary. Having a boundary is a foreign concept to the emotional abuser. They find the word offensive considering that having a boundary limits the activity of the abuser in terms of taking from their victims whatever they choose. Ahhh, there’s the rub!

An emotional bully is quite literally the definition of a pirate i.e. take everything of value, neither leave nor give anything in return. It isn’t so much that emotional bullies lack self worth as a motivation to drain their surroundings of any and all worth as it is that they tend to be the grandiose opposite of a selfless person with an inflated sense of importance and entitlement. In contrast, their carefully chosen prey unintentionally motivates the bully to obliterate those in his or her path who attempt to call them out and then stop them. Incredibly long sentence, I know, and accurate in description. Emotional abusers – bullies, if you will – work very, very hard at lying to everyone around them and to build a façade of narcissistic dominance, especially so to two persons in particular: first and foremost, their intended victims; and secondly, yet more importantly, themselves. Being of fragile ego, the emotional bully loathes him or herself as the case may be, to an inherently destructive degree which is what makes them such diabolically fierce predators.

As you continue to read you’ll notice that I use he/she and his/her interchangeably. The reason for this is simple. Although a large body of empirical data and professional writings regarding domestic violence and abusive behavior focuses largely on men as abusers and women as victims, the fact remains that not all victims are women and not all abusers are men. Women do, in fact, emotionally abuse others significantly so and very often their intended targets are their own children, spouses, and even friends whom they truly envy and wish to degrade thus the creation of the word “frenemy.” If your definition of abuser is synonymous with being male then I invite you to set aside that notion and consider that not all abusiveness follows traditional gender roles and most certainly is not limited to physical abuse. Neither is it relegated to overt methods of non-physical violence such as screaming, name calling, and verbal threats of possible physical violence in response to lack of compliance. Those forms of abuse are, indeed, reprehensible. However, there is a more insidious form of abuse that fails to leave physical marks which is often as elusive as vapor in terms of pinning it down that I contend is as much, if not more so in some ways, more deadly over time than some physical acts of violence: emotional, psychological, and spiritual abuses fall into this category. The abuse that leaves no tell-tale signs not only leaves the victim injured but also leaves the victim invalidated as the burden of proof rests entirely on their proverbial shoulders.  In reading this I hope that you gain insight into all of your relationships and not just the romantic ones. Truly, abusiveness can be found in the most unlikely of places leading us into even more abusive situations unless we learn to appropriately identify them wherever they might be found. Very many of them begin within a victim’s own family of origin with the abusive behaviors becoming normalized as accepted behavior.

To all of my readers regardless of age or gender it is my intention to offer you true hope and healthy guidelines in identifying then breaking fee of abusive relationships. The first step toward that end is in learning to appropriately identify them as such which is why I write on the subject so often. However, to my male readers in particular who find themselves in abusive relationships whether those relationships exist at work, at home, at church, or some combination thereof, I offer you this: there is hope and you are not alone. And to the abusers reading this article (because I know that many of you do for the specific purpose of gaining information to use against your victims) I say this: welcome to my spotlight of exposure. In case you’ve failed to notice, I’m something of an in-your-face advocate on behalf of the abused. I will not stay silent so that you can remain comfortable.

Emotional Terrorists 

Emotional bullies are abusers, ipso facto. Emotional bullies tend to be over-sensitized to their own feelings to the exclusion of others and also tend to confuse their wants for needs which they demand that others meet instantly and routinely or else. It is the “or else” threat which becomes the unseen knife in the hand of the emotional bully as waved in the face of the victim. To say that emotional bullies are impatient with their own discomfort is an understatement as they have no tolerance for not having their way at all times and very much at the expense of others. In that way, they are significantly infantile and emotionally immature. Like psychopaths – and many emotional bullies are, indeed, psychopathic – emotional bullies have malformed emotions often limited to proto-emotions which are nothing more than primitive responses to the most basic of human needs. As Dr. Robert Hare states in his groundbreaking book Without Conscience regarding the psychopathic personality,

“paint-by-numbers emotions are all that exist for this type of abuser in terms of recognizing emotions in others as well as feeling anything personally in terms of legitimate human emotion.”

Guilt for perceived wrongs committed and empathy for someone else’s pain are non-existent to the emotional abuser. To the emotional bully/abuser, the victim only exists as an extension of the abuser for the direct purpose of meeting his or her wants which are confused for needs.

Emotional bullies are master manipulators who are highly adept at wearing down the will of their victims through shame (how could you let me down like this/I need someone to stand beside me and not run in fear), goading (I guess you just don’t have what it takes to be my friend/business partner/lover, etc.), needling (if you’re too scared to “xyz” then I’ll find someone else), guilt-tripping (someone who cares about me would [fill in the blank]; you always let me down when I need you the most), charm (you’re such a brave person, I know you wouldn’t disappoint me like so-and-so), bribes (do this and I’ll buy you [fill-in-the-blank item]), and tactics of public humiliation (in a public setting, “Tim told everyone that I’m a bad wife…” *sniff* *sniff*).

Emotional bullies are highly adept at conditioning their prey to excuse away abusive behavior and force compliance with their own abusiveness. Emotional bullies – and at this point, let’s just call them what they are: abusers and emotional terrorists– are inherently deceitful people who are highly skilled at turning the tables, as it were, on their prey. I insist on calling the victim “prey” because that is how the abuser sees their victim(s). Destroy and consume is the ultimate goal for this type of abuser.

Emotional bullies refuse to acknowledge any wrongdoing and instead project guilt onto others for not complying with their demands. An emotional abuser works very hard at manipulating the sensitivity and empathy of their intended victims as a means of making the abused feel responsible for the abusers infantile emotions. They refuse to move past their own primitive needs and wants, and routinely refuse to alter their desires while deliberately ignoring the very real needs of others. It is this behavior that makes emotional abusers exceptionally dangerous parents and intimate partners.

In the next six weeks I will breakdown for the reader the psychology of the emotional terrorist outlining specific tactics that they use against their targets, how they think, and the tools they use to gain control, their primary motivations, how they interact as parents and as intimate partners, and what their victims can do to stop the cycle of abuse. As always, I am here to answer questions and provide resources to those needing help.

Thank you for your readership. You are not alone.

~Amy

© Amy Lynn Burch 2014
All Rights Reserved
No part of this work or webpage or any of its contents may be reproduced, copied, modified or adapted, without the prior written consent of the author, unless otherwise indicated by the author for stand-alone materials.

At What Price, Fame: The High Cost of Re-Victimization and the Steubenville Rape Case

29 Monday Apr 2013

Posted by in Psychological Abuse, Stalking and Predator Behavior, Steubenville Rape Case

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

, , , , , ,

by Amy Lynn Burch

Published on April 29, 2013 @ 10:32pm

With the verdict decided and justice served, I sit here at my computer some six weeks later contemplating the potential aftermath of the Steubenville Rape case. Although, I am satisfied that the correct judgment was rendered I cannot help but wonder how much damage was done to the case and all parties involved due to social media manipulation and the meddlesome behavior of those claiming to be members of the hacktivist group “Anonymous”. I’ve written before that I believe one blogger in particular has used the Steubenville Rape case to further her own personal agenda. I contend that she has a personal axe to grind, if you will, as respects the powers that be in Steubenville. By powers that be I mean specifically law enforcement of Steubenville and also Big Red football which has been suggested by others including said blogger to have considerable pull within the Steubenville community. I almost don’t care to mention the blogger’s name again for the simple reason that she has gone out of her way to make herself a household name at the expense of a victimized 16 year old girl that we’ve all come to know as Jane Doe.  I’m not one to reward those who seek attention or fame at the expense of a sexual assault survivor’s dignity, or any other form of abuse for that matter.  In my opinion, stated blogger has been rewarded enough and her 15 minutes of fame which should be well over by now. However, much to my personal dislike and for the sake of clarity, I will have to name her plainly, yet again. As the Grand Jury convenes in Steubenville tomorrow, April 30, 2013, as it considered perhaps more charges against yet unnamed persons for their involvement in the case, I felt it important to revisit the progression or, rather, the unraveling of this case and its potential aftermath on the victim, as well as all persons involved.

For months, “For Jane Doe!” has been the would-be battle cry of numerous social media mavens, not the least of which is Alexandria “Prinnie” Goddard, coupled with her so-called “Anonymous drones” as well as her self-professed best friend, Michelle L McKee.  But how, exactly, was any of this social media circus which they by their own admission created and drove full-force into the media spotlight truly for the benefit of Jane Doe? What was the game plan? Did they have a game plan, or what end state did they intend to achieve? What did they hope to accomplish “for Jane Doe” that wasn’t already being done privately by her own family and law enforcement within the town of Steubenville, and why did they assume that national attention was warranted and would help? Based on what did they assume that “nothing was being done” to investigate this case? Not one of these questions has been sufficiently answered by Alexandria “Prinnie” Goddard and her Anon-followers. In fact, these questions appear to have been deliberately avoided. Curious.

In order to efficiently answer these questions, perhaps we should examine the timeline of events as presented by Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine and Special Prosecutor Marianne Hemmeter at a news conference immediately following the verdict in the Steubenville Rape case to see just exactly how Goddard, Anonymous, and McKee championed Jane Doe’s “cause” and aided in bringing justice in this case. I remind the reader that the assault of Jane Doe occurred between the dates of August 11th and 12th, 2012 and was reported to authorities by Jane Doe’s parents two days later on August 14th, 2012 after having taken Jane Doe to a local hospital for examination. Steubenville law enforcement officials were notified by hospital officials and Jane Doe’s parents as to the events and allegations of sexual assault – for which Mays and Richmond have now been found delinquent – at that time:

On August 16, 2012, the Steubenville Police Department asked the Attorney General’s Bureau of Criminal Investigation (BCI) to assist in processing the scene of a rape that occurred at a home in Wintersville, OH.  Our agent immediately responded and processed the scene. 

 

On August 17, 2012, the Police Department contacted BCI again and asked for our assistance in analyzing cell phones collected from the main suspects in the rape investigation and to process other forensic evidence.

**As an aside: It should be noted that at this point during the seven day period between authorities collecting and analyzing data to the time that Jefferson County Prosecutor Jane Hanlin filed the charges, activity related to case in terms of investigation was still ongoing although not made public for reasons likely involving the protection of case evidence. 

On August 24, 2012, Jefferson County Prosecutor Jane Hanlin filed three charges against a juvenile — rape, kidnapping, and dissemination of nudity-oriented materials of a juvenile.  On that same day, Prosecutor Hanlin also filed charges of rape and kidnapping against a second juvenile. 

 

On August 27, 2012, Prosecutor Hanlin moved the Court to bind the juveniles over to be treated as adults.  On that same day, Prosecutor Hanlin formerly requested assistance from the Ohio Attorney General’s office in the prosecution of the two juveniles.  Thereafter, the Common Pleas Court appointed my office as the prosecutor in this matter.  I then directed attorneys Marianne Hemmeter and Brian Deckert in our Special Prosecutions Section to handle the case. 

 

On October 12, 2012, the juvenile court of Jefferson County held a probable cause hearing for the two juveniles.  At that time, the Court determined that the two were and are amenable to rehabilitation in the juvenile court system and therefore denied the motion to try them as adults.

Does anyone else see what I see? Or, rather, what I don’t see? Nowhere within the above timeline are Goddard and/or Anonymous mentioned. Neither is McKee mentioned in bringing material information to the attention of authorities in Steubenville regarding the then-alleged assault of Jane Doe.  Everything outlined above is a matter of record clearly documented and none of it is to the credit of Goddard, Anonymous, and/or McKee for a very specific reason; they provided nothing of material value in the prosecution of this case. Zero, zip, nada! Just to be clear, let’s look at when Goddard, specifically, did become involved by willfully, and without invitation, inserting herself into this case. It should be clearly noted that the following Facebook Private Messages dated August 25, 2012, were released to me by the recipient and respondent, Joey Ortega, and are used by permission. All of the typos and grammatical errors of both Goddard and Ortega are left intact to protect the integrity of the messages:

12:18am

Alexandria Goddard

left you a voicemail – trying to figure out how to deal with this blog I’m working on. High school football players gang raped a female from another school. Party was at a COACH’s house, and the news and cops sat on this for over a week before making an arrest

AND there are still players who were there and had the video, were tweeting it and they were suited up tonight for the game.

12:38am

Joey Ortega

So there is an active investigation?

12:38am

Alexandria Goddard

yes, but the coach hasn’t been arrested and the other players have deleted tweets that sent the video out. You should see the shit I found.

NOT A WORD has been said about these other kids.

http://www.wtov9.com/news/news/breaking-news-steubenville-teens-officially-charge/nRJsQ/watch that video

 

 

  • watch that video

12:44am

Joey Ortega

K, I cant atm. But will later tonight. So what is the issue. Not sure in angle, or u sitting on exclusive price of evidence or a tipster that needs to be worked?

12:44am

Alexandria Goddard

I am about half afraid to give it to LE because they are protecting these other kids.

I used to live in Steubenville and KNOW how it works there.

12:49am

Joey Ortega

What do u have?

12:49am

Alexandria Goddard

proof that two of the varsity players tweeted the video, deleted their tweets so they wouldn’t get in trouble and it was posted on a site with the tags “rape” and drunk, as well as talking about sodomizing her and pissing on her.

1:15am

Joey Ortega

You have the tweets? Where did u get them? Are u sure they are authentic?

1:31am

Alexandria Goddard

Yes they are authentic. They came from google cache and topsy which will archive deleted tweets.

1:58am

Joey Ortega

So what is the deal now. Everyone. Thinks all evidence is gone or there is a gag order regarding the publication of such stuff?

12:45pm

Alexandria Goddard

There is no gag order. I don’t think LE even knows the shit is out there. This is a small town. What pisses me off is that video is STILL being shown. People saved it to their cells and it was being shown as of last night in a BAR in town. Can you believe that? Plus, the other four players involved were suited up and played last night. That’s how important football is to that town. This is going to end up being PennState, Jr.

2:57pm

Joey Ortega

It was playing at a bar last night? Thats essentially child porn. It was on their main screens or someone was walking around with it and showing ppl?

2:58pm

Alexandria Goddard

waqlking around showing it

3:00pm

Joey Ortega

How did you hear about this? Was the freak arrested?

3:00pm

Alexandria Goddard

I lived in Steubenville and still have lots of friends there. Someone who was at the bar last night told me about it.

and no…and the other four players have not been arrested. I honestly don’t think the prosecutor’s office is going to do much more. That town loves their high school football team more than they like justice. and they are all starters who were involved.

3:07pm

Joey Ortega

I say run with the story. Are you wanting my help with angles for your blog are are you asking to make this a BTYT thing?

3:08pm

Alexandria Goddard

aksing your help. I can cross post of course, but I am going to name the others and post the screenshots of their tweets and ask WHY they have not been arrested.

  • Joey Ortega

    I say let’s do both if interested. I’ll help either way of course but what if we ran this as ongoing story with BTYT too. You’ll be noted as the lead reporter on this story. You’ll writhe the articles and give verbal updates on the air. Then you can do something’s that I think you should do, and do it under our banner so theyll have to screw with me before screwing with you. A couple of things I suggest is sending a letter to the DA and the ADA posing your questions as well a copies of the tweets. Also do the same for the PD chief and detective in charge. Then the same to the principal of the school. Then the stick part is what to do after. Personally I would then write the story series intro, with all the details and the tweets, blot out victims name of its still not public, and include the questions posed to these people and that you are awaiting their answers and will update. This way it hooks readers/listeners and gets the ball rolling before anyone can attempt to block the tweets with some legal BS or threats. Doing all this under the banner of BTYT , with all the endorsements we have in the law enforcement community may make it less likely that ppl will sit on the enter and not answer in some way. Just don’t do the coming at your throat thing…yet, lol. It rarely works and only looks cool on tv

  • Alexandria Goddard

    The prosecutor is going ot recuse herself as she is friendly with the families of these kids. The whole town knew for TWO weeks before anyone was even arrested.

     

    I know the Chief of Police. I used to hang out with him – dated his partner for years. My concern is that because the football team there is SO important that this is going to be buried.

     
  • Joey Ortega

    All the more reason to run with it. Want me to approach the the chief and DA so that I can be the bad guy?

     

    Walking out. Text my phone.

So much for the mythology that Joey Ortega did nothing to help Alexandria “Prinnie” Goddard begin an honest investigative report on what he believed at the time – based on Alexandria “Prinnie” Goddard’s misunderstanding of the facts – was a potentially mishandled rape case. What we now know is that Steubenville authorities already had the information that they needed and that  the case well in hand before Alexandria “Prinnie” Goddard decided to use this case to her advantage.

I encourage you to go back and read Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine’s timeline which, again, is well documented against what Alexandria “Prinnie” Goddard claims in terms of “nothing being done” until she began blogging about the case then spinning it in the direction she preferred, e.g. anti-football and anti-law enforcement, the reasons of which still remain unanswered.

Something else that should be mentioned is that in all of the communications that I’ve read that were shared between Prinnie and Joey beginning August 25, 2012 through January 23, 2013, not one time – not once! – does Prinnie mention Jane Doe or that she is doing this “for Jane Doe.” What she does mention, however, is alleged (and still unsupported, I might add) “corruption” of Steubenville law enforcement and the power of Big Red football which she clearly despises. To reiterate: not one mention of Jane Doe.

Counting the Cost

Again, I ask readers how have the unsolicited-by-Jane-Doe-and-her-family mechanizations of Goddard and her associates helped Jane Doe receive justice? Simply stated, it hasn’t.  If anything, their involvement has complicated the case from the moment in which they became involved. Notice that I didn’t trivialize the word complicated by encasing it in quotations because it isn’t a joke. The meddlesome behavior of Goddard and her minions is, in my opinion, quite serious on multiple levels. AG DeWine was quite clear when he state in his post verdict news conference that “social media has re-victimized Jane Doe,” which is something that I have stated all along yet, somehow, this fact continues to fall on deaf ears. Proper handling and aftercare of trauma victims is critical to the healing process. Handled incorrectly, the risks of re-traumatization whether intended or not, is extremely high. It matters very little what the alleged “good intentions” were of Goddard and her associates, but, rather, what matters more is the potentially long-lasting negative affect their antics may have caused to Jane Doe, her family, and the entire community of Steubenville, Ohio.

Something that needs to be stated for those who do not understand is this: trauma sufferers cannot set themselves free from pain. It takes qualified intervention and facilitation to begin the healing process for trauma and abuse sufferers. Under what might be loosely termed “normal” circumstances of trauma occurrence, it can take up to six months to a year for symptoms of trauma stress to surface before they can effectively be dealt with. Because Jane Doe not only suffered the initial trauma of sexual assault coupled with unusual circumstances, and then was not allowed to process the events privately before being unwillingly hurtled into the national spotlight, her trauma symptoms will likely be compounded. Trauma symptoms for Jane Doe have also likely not even begun to surface. Only time will tell what the true fallout for her might be in the long run and in the near future.

No matter what the original intention of Goddard, Anonymous, McKee, and those who aided them (and I have my own suspicions about what might be the motives) it remains that re-victimizing Jane Doe is inexcusable. I contend that because of the actions of Goddard/Anonymous/McKee and those whose hearts may have been in the right place but clearly were not thinking empathetically and rationally, Jane Doe was left with absolutely zero space to process the sexual assault that she suffered in August of 2012. Not only that, she has now been intentionally re-victimized over and over and over again at the hands of social media that blatantly refuses to acknowledge and respect personal boundaries. Just so I’m clear, let me state in no uncertain terms to all reading this that the general public’s ‘right to know’ ends when it violates the personal privacy of others particularly when one’s personal privacy includes the details of experiencing a humiliating criminal act.

Re-victimization is not some catchy term we use because it sounds impressive. It is very real and it is very harmful in that it has the power to cause even greater harm to trauma sufferers than the initial trauma itself. The reason for this is actually very simple to understand even though revictimization itself is, in reality, a complex process. Taken down to its basic structure, when trauma is experienced the person in crises is feeling the information and not merely thinking about it or processing it intellectually. Unlike those who observe trauma from an outside perspective, the person who experiences the trauma in the flesh re-experiences the traumatic event repeatedly. As a result, the risk of reinforcing trauma and compounding the harm is extraordinarily high. Blatant disregard for a rape victim’s privacy has similar if not the same psychological effects as first order assault at the hands of the victim’s assailant(s). Disregard of a rape victim’s needs immediately after assault and in the months thereafter may not only delay the healing process but can also cause significant re-traumatization which may permanently impair the victim’s ability to recover.

As a quick aside before I go any further, let me state that it is well documented that persons who witness traumatic events are equally at risk for suffering the effects of trauma stress as persons who actually experience the traumatic event although to a somewhat lesser degree although it is difficult to quantify the effects of trauma stress because trauma experience is individual to the individual. Resiliency is a complex issue which is why it is difficult to predict who may or may not suffer more greatly in terms of experienced trauma. Not only does witnessing someone else experience trauma also create traumatic stress for certain persons it can also have a desensitizing effect on those who choose to view others pain as entertainment. As you can see, trauma is a very complicated issue and should never ever be treated as a joke or as incidental. Don’t even get me started on secondary traumatic stress for case workers!

Moving back to Jane Doe and her very real first person experience, it is important to address how certain victims experience stress. Particularly where sexual assault is concerned, trauma is experienced by the whole person and not just the body, as if just the body was any kind of consolation. For those reactionary soles who have come unglued and the previous statement, what I mean by just “just the body” is that the body experience although significant does not encompass the totality of how traumatic events such as sexual assault affect the whole person. Again, the body experience is only one component of sexual assault. Because of testimony provided in the Steubenville Rape case, it is now known that Jane Doe had no conscious memory of the sexual assault when it happened but this does not mean that her body lacked the ability to process the assault. To the contrary, very likely her body remembers what her mind never will which could complicate her healing process. Notice I stated “could” and not “will” because it is possible that that particular potential cannot be quantified.

The element of having no memory of the actual assault yet seeing portions of what has been portrayed with bias in the media could only serve to confuse what memory of the assault she might ever actually truly recall, and done so in such a way from a perspective wherein they had no creditable information. In other words, her experience has been tainted by social media calling into question what actually happened and when. How confusing it must be for her to see images of herself which she cannot on her own remember coupled with a false narrative carefully designed by people she doesn’t even know. That aspect of her particular experience is complex enough without the added issue of having to see the video of related events portrayed over and over again against her will by supposedly well meaning social and mainstream media who wanted to “help” her.  It has been stated clearly by Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine, the Asst. Attorney General and Special Prosecutor in this case, Marianne Hemmeter, and Prosecutor Jane Hanlin who is the one who filed the charges in the first place before the involvement of social media and Anonymous, that Jane Doe didn’t want the “help” of these people. In fact, Jane Doe didn’t even want to press charges. I am addressing this for a specific reason.

Even if Jane Doe’s case had never been thrust into the national spotlight, dealing with the aftermath of sexual assault trauma would be difficult enough to deal with due to the fact that the already over-stimulated nervous system needs to time to calm down after such an experience. Even in the best of circumstances, insofar as that’s possible related to trauma experience, finding a new “normal” takes time and is a very tedious task. In Jane Doe’s case she has been in a chronic state of revictimization at the hands of social media and Anonymous over and over and over again without any regard for how it would affect her in a very real and tangible sense. In short, she has had little, if any, time and space to remove herself from the limelight of national attention in order to reach a place of calm from a biological perspective. Even now, some six weeks after the verdict she is still dealing with national attention compounded by even more victimization almost immediately after the verdict by two girls who threatened her in relation to the case outcome. So the abuse of Jane Doe continues, intended or not. Carelessness in revictimization cannot be excused away with a cursory “that wasn’t my intention,” but now I think that we are beginning to see the true intention and it is far from altruistic.

I’ve stated this before and I will state it again: if I were Jane Doe’s mother I would be furious at social media, Anonymous, and those who aided them for insinuating themselves into my daughter’s very private pain and then exploiting her all over the Internet. What would make it so much worse for me if I were Jane Doe’s mother comes from knowing that my daughter was used as a pawn in a game to settle a personal score or to derive fame from all the media attention. The thoughts that would be going through my mind if this had happened to my child would be, “What right do these people have to exploit very painful-to-look-at images of my daughter all over the Internet, and how can they possibly think that this somehow helps her, particularly when authorities were already appropriately and quietly addressing the crime? Did any of them bother to ask our permission to be involved?”

In closing, I ask again, where was the focus in the Steubenville case where Goddard, Anonymous, McKee, and those who aided them are concerned? Actions have consequences and it isn’t enough in the aftermath to imply flippantly and as an effort to distance oneself from the painful results “…harming Jane Doe was never the intention so [I, we, they] cannot be responsible for the unintended consequences.” To those who seem to think this way let me just state that not only can you be held responsible for the “unintended consequences” but that I sincerely hope you are held responsible in every legal sense possible. In the Steubenville Rape case, was it ever truly about Jane Doe? No. I think that clearly, it was not. Judging by their own actions it is quite apparent that the focus was, and always has been, on them and literally on the backs of Jane Doe as well as the convicted, and the entire town of Steubenville. As evidenced by their own behavior the entire focus in bringing “awareness” to the case appears to have served what I think might be two clear purposes, at least for Goddard: first, I think she has a score to settle within the town of Steubenville and she used this case as a platform for that purpose; and, second, I think this case was used intentionally as a catalyst for both Goddard and McKee to gain fame. I could be wrong about that and if proven wrong I will gladly admit it. For now, I think I’m on the right course. There are very real consequences to taking advantage of someone else’s pain for your own personal agenda and gain. It’s more than sick; it’s diabolical abuse which should not be ignored.

~Amy

Ambient Abuse: Gaslight Effect and the Diabolical Personality

05 Friday Apr 2013

Posted by in Personality Disorders, Psychological Abuse

≈ 51 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

*This week has been a marathon of activity in which I have accomplished much but produced little in terms of writing. Continuing ed., a precarious work schedule, and Spring Break for two of my kids have made the challenges of deadlines even more difficult to meet. My intention was to post a piece regarding Borderline Personality Disorder by week’s end. Unfortunately, that post must wait until Monday for completion. (Don’t ask… it’s complicated.) However, as a precursor to my up-coming post on BDP, I have decided to re-post a short and to-the-point piece that I wrote over a year ago regarding a manipulative tactic used by emotional abusers referred to as “The Gaslight Effect.” My hope is that the reader will gain not only knowledge of this diabolical technique but also gain effective tools of response to combat pervasive psychological warfare perpetrated by those who wish to control them and do them significant  harm.

original publication date October 17, 2011 @ 1:00pm EST

“Gaslighting” is clinically defined as “intimidation or psychological abuse in which false information is deliberately presented to the victim, making them doubt their own memory and/or perception of an event or events.” The most diabolical and deceitful personalities use this tactic in their daily lives to get their way and avoid responsibility at the expense and to the detriment of their victims. Power relationships are hot-beds, if you will, for this out-right evil tool of hidden manipulation which thrives on the aggressor dominating and asserting power, coupled with the victim acquiescing to their demands and giving them power. Although, traditionally seen in male/female romantic relationships, Gaslighting can, and often does occur in parent-to-child relationships with mothers the common perpetrators.  Additionally, this dynamic can be found in female-to-female relationships often described as “frenemy” (of frienemy, if you prefer) relationships in which the self-professed Alpha female dominates all others for personal gain. Something akin to the movie Mean Girls likely just sprung to mind which is a somewhat accurate example of the dynamic that exists in such power relationships.

Where did we acquire the term Gaslighting Effect? From the 1944 movie, Gaslight, starring Charles Boyer and Ingrid Bergman in which Boyer’s character tries to drive “insane” his wife played by Bergman. Relative to nothing, it should be noted that this version of the film was a remake of the 1940 film of the same name starring Anton Walbrook and Diana Wynyard. The original film was an adaptation of the play “Gas Light” written in 1938 by Patrick Hamilton. Personally, I believe the later version of the film with Boyer and Bergman tells a better story and better defines the hidden manipulative behavior in question than the original film. I strongly recommend to the reader that if you have not seen the film, then go now – after you finish reading this, of course – and rent it from Netflix for a better understanding of the behavior in action.

“Enough background!” you say? “What exactly is Gaslighting? What does the tactic entail?” My hope for the reader in this next section is that it elicits at least one, if not many, “Eureka!” moments as perhaps each of you recognize that you are in one or more of these power relationships and that, no, you aren’t crazy! The gaslighter’s over all goal is to modify evidence then falsify information for the purpose of making their intended target(s) question their own recollection, memory, analysis, and perception of events and/or behaviors. In other words, they reject reality and substitute it with their own for personal gain and entertainment. In short, they enjoy inflicting psychological pain onto others and will stop at nothing to psychologically abuse their targets in order to get their own way. So what is it that they do?  The primary behaviors are listed as follows:

  • Deny existence of an event even when presented with evidence (Denial);
  • Deliberately block their victims from source data (Compartmentalizing);
  • Deny behaviors by immediately putting their targets on the defensive (Deflection);
  • Insist that their targets are imagining things (Chronic Invalidation);
  • Shame their targets for expressing very real hurts (Minimization);
  • Insist that others are the source of their poor choices (Blaming);
  • Mentally abuse their targets with criticism veiled as “advice” (Depreciation);
  • (Usually) must have the last word (again, Chronic Invalidation);
  • Force agreement by their targets to accept their false reality (Domination);
  • Engage in gossip in order to hurt and control their targets (Humiliation);
  • Has the ability to “sell ice to an Eskimo” meaning that they are persistent and manipulative enough to convince someone to invest in something that they could receive for free (Insincerity).

The above described behaviors are perpetrated in concert and incessantly by ambient abusers, always. At their very core, those who Gaslight others are accomplished con artists who know how to select, isolate, and then stealthily psychologically abuse their targets into submission for their own personal gain. Gaslighters are bullies who often hide behind a good-guy (or girl) persona and have no hesitation about portraying themselves as a “victim” to be pitied for the purpose of maintaining control over others. They are utterly anti-social as evidenced by their persistent choices in violating the rights of others. They are never to be trusted. Let me be perfectly clear before I go any further that within a parent-to-child gaslighting dynamic the child has little choice but to comply with their ambient abuser so the term “enabling” does not apply in that context.  However, within peer-to-peer relationships, enabling drives the behavior forward and does nothing to stop the relentless abuse.

Dr. Robin Stern, author of the book The Gaslight Effect: How to Spot and Survive the Hidden Manipulation Others Use to Control Your Life describes the dynamic between the abuser and abused as “The Gaslight Tango” which I think is a brilliant description of how the manipulative tool works collectively with those who enable them. She offers a fresh perspective on the enabling behavior of the gaslighting victim which shines a much brighter light on how abusers often get away with their diabolical behaviors. The abuser understands clearly that there is an energy cost associated with their targets disengaging from their abusiveness and they exploit that cost to their advantage whenever possible.

Ambient abusers are classic nit-pickers who redirect attention away from their own abusive behavior by engaging in insidious forms of abuse that are not clearly recognizable by the general public as abusive behavior. For example, ambient abusers often publicly shame their targets for insignificant errors as a deflective tactic to keep others from looking at the abuser’s behavior.  When questioned about their own behavior they use the following phrases to gain the silence and compliance from their targets:

“I can’t talk you to you when you get like this…” (Makes their target sound unreasonable and puts the responsibility entirely on the target.)

“After everything that I’ve done for you…” (Routinely tries to buy the targets willingness to comply through gifts and favors only to turn around and, when convenient, demand “repayment.”)

“How can you be so selfish…” (Usually said when they meet resistance at getting their own way.)

“If you loved me you would [xyz]…” (Classic coercive tactic.)

“Can’t you see how you’re hurting me…” (Which is usually said when confronted about their own abusive behavior.)

Psychopathic personalities very often hide in plain sight and seek refuge behind those persons whom they know can be easily controlled. The psychological, emotional, and physical abuser knows how to exploit others for their own deceitful gain. These abusive persons – who very often are women – will “gaslight” their victims relentlessly and will also flat-out deny all abusive behaviors even in the face of physical evidence. All that is needed for the abuser to continue without consequence is the buy-in and silence of those who know the truth and yet say nothing. Plainly stated, family members, friends, pastors, counselors, teachers, and any other persons that know of and/or witness abuse then do nothing to stop it are complicit in its perpetration. Make no mistake in understanding that psychological aggression is, in fact, a form of violence which leaves no physical scars making ambient abuse both insidious and pervasive.

I hope that the reader has found this information enlightening and helpful. I further hope that it challenges those who allow themselves to be dominated by emotional abusers to rethink their choices and then stop the cycle of abuse by disengaging from the madness. There is an energy cost associated with disengaging the ambient abuser; however, it is far less than the cost of allowing them to continue to perpetrate abuse. For further reading on the subject (that I promise is not too technical) yet addresses the topic effectively, I recommend the resource material listed below.

~Amy

Resources:

Forward, S. (1997). Emotional Blackmail: When the People in Your Life Use Fear, Obligation, and Guilt to Manipulate You. New York, NY, Harper-Collins Publishing.

Jacobson, N. S., & Gottman, J. M. (1998). When men batter women, new insights into ending abusive relationships. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.”

Simon, G. K. (1996). In sheep’s clothing: Understanding and dealing with manipulative people. Parkhurst Brother’s, Inc. Little Rock, Arkansas.

Stern, R. (2007). The gaslight effect: How to spot and survive the hidden manipulation others use to control your life. (1st ed.). New York, NY: Random House.

© Amy Lynn Burch 2008 – 2015
All Rights Reserved

No part of this work or webpage or any of its contents may be reproduced, copied, modified or adapted, without the prior written consent of the author, unless otherwise indicated by the author for stand-alone materials. 

Human Trafficking: The Mindset of the Buyer

23 Saturday Mar 2013

Posted by in Human Sexuality, Stalking and Predator Behavior

≈ 4 Comments

Tags

, , , , ,

Published on March 15, 2013 @ 7pm (PST)

*Following is the elusive and much requested “Part Five” of my four-part series on Human Trafficking as relates to sexual crimes. Yes, you read that correctly and, no, I’m not high. *grin*  I was asked by many readers to include what was considered the overlooked driving force behind the crime of sexual trafficking. First presented on BehindTheYellowTape with Joey Ortega on March 15, 2013, I finally present to you Part Five~ Human Trafficking: The Mindset of the Buyer. As a note to the reader, empirical citations are included for the benefit of the reader wishing to learn more regarding the crime of sex trafficking from verified sources.

The participants in human trafficking are known in detail with the exception of perhaps the most important participant: the buyer. The typical yet erroneous belief as respects sex trafficking and prostitution is generally that the behavior of the women involved is the sole cause of the selling of sex. What is portrayed in the media often enhances this belief with prostitutes portrayed as sexual enticers and not as enslaved victims. Prostitutes are well defined and fleshed out as caricatures within media in contrast of the harsh reality to the exclusion of the buyer who remains faceless, nameless, and poorly defined. To effectively stop the practice of human slavery in the form of sex trafficking we must clearly define, insofar as that is possible, the buyer and what motivates their behavior as relates to sex trafficking. The fact remains that without the buyer, there is no market, and there is no demand.

Examining the mindset of the buyer is critical in addressing the growing problem of sex trafficking. For the consenting adult sex need not be purchased in order to be enjoyed. Let’s face it, sex is free in many respects so why the created market for what could be negotiated outside of monetary coercion? Is it really necessary for anyone to have to pay for sex? The answer is, maybe. Without making anyone entirely uncomfortable, there might be certain sexual preferences to otherwise enjoyed without the benefit of money and I won’t go into those details. But, again, if it were solely an issue of sexual gratification would it be necessary to buy such enjoyment? Probably not, which begs the question: if it’s not about sex, then what is the true issue?

It might be surprising for many to learn that the purchase of sex usually has less to do with the sex act itself and more to do with buying the “right” to temporarily degrade and abuse another human being for ones personal entertainment. When researching the attitudes and behaviors of the typical sex purchaser one trait was uniformly clear; all subjects from which data was collected had the desire to physically abuse and degrade their victims. In short, purchasing sex was less about engaging in sex and more about inflicting harm and the “right” to do so because money had changed hands. Ironically, the issue of violence is the one area all but ignored by traditional research that seeks to explore patterns in prostitution and how to combat the trends in sex trafficking.

As clearly stated in last week’s overview of human trafficking, the majority of data compiled in relation to sex trafficking relies on self report not just in terms of identified  victims who, heretofore, have been referred to as “prostitutes” or ”sex workers” but also as respects purchasers commonly referred to as “johns” making it difficult to pinpoint accurate statistics. Even so, current available research data indicates the violence factor as a primary motivator in the purchase of sex across socioeconomic categories (Hughs, 2004, p. 9). Specifically, current research indicates that the typical purchaser of sex acts engages routinely in beating, slapping, and intimidating with a deadly weapon those persons from whom they purchase sex (Erbe, 1984, p. 623; Hughs, 2004, pp. 9-11). The only potential exception to this trend appears to be teenaged boys taken to a strip club and/or prostitute as a “first time” experience (Hughs, 2004, p. 10).

Because of the otherwise ignored violence factor as a motivator for purchased sex, the typical view of the “john” is one of being a lonely, single, or otherwise sexually dissatisfied male unable to maintain a relationship with opposite sex who must, therefore, purchase sexual gratification. Current research does not support this portrait. In two major studies conducted in Canada and the United States, the portrait of the typical “john” has emerged as much more disturbing (Sawyer, et al., 2002). As respects the Candian study, 70% of sex purchasers were married or in long-term relationships. 43% of the Canadian study participants either had children or planned to have children in the future. As respects the participants of the United States study, 80% of the “johns” reported that they were either married or in a steady relationship that was sexually satisfying. These same study participants shared the view with other males in studies conducted around the globe that sex is commodity associate with the right to perpetrate violence against women  (Sawyer, et al., 2002).

References:

Hughs, D. (2004).  Best Practices to Address the Demand Side of Sex Trafficking. University of Rhode Island, Women’s Studies Program.

Erbe, N. (1984). “Prostitutes: Victims of Men’s Exploitation and Abuse,” Law and Inequality, Vol. 2(2). p. 623.

Sawyer, S., Metz, M., Hinds, J., & Brucker, R.(Winter 2001 – 2002). Attitudes towards Prostitution among Males: A ‘Consumers’ Report,” Current Psychology: Developmental, Learning, Personality, Social, Vol. 20(4), pp 363-376.

© Amy Lynn Burch 2008 – 2013
All Rights Reserved

No part of this work or webpage or any of its contents may be reproduced, copied, modified or adapted, without the prior written consent of the author, unless otherwise indicated by the author for stand-alone materials.