Why do some victims become perpetrators?
February 18, 2006 5:54 PM Subscribe
What are the various theoretical frameworks for understanding why victims of abuse often 'deal' with their trauma by becoming perpetrators themselves? What explanations have been suggested, for example, as to why sexually molested children often grow up into sexually-molesting adults? The one that comes to mind is that the victim somehow feels he can master the trauma by becoming its perpetrator. What, or who, is the origin of this theory? Is it Freud? Does it (still) have any currency in professional circles? What, if any, other theories have been suggested?
One very simple way of looking at it is that children tend to copy parental behavior (monkey see, monkey do) since it is the dominant life-strategy they are exposed to. Add to that the fact that early sexual experiences have an incredibly strong effect on later sexualization, and you have a good 50% of it I think.
posted by unSane at 6:30 PM on February 18, 2006
posted by unSane at 6:30 PM on February 18, 2006
There was a few years there where I had to fight the attitude of, "well, it is going to happen to them sooner or later, why not now?"
When the only options you've seen are victim or abuser, it is rather difficult to come out sane.
posted by QIbHom at 6:38 PM on February 18, 2006
When the only options you've seen are victim or abuser, it is rather difficult to come out sane.
posted by QIbHom at 6:38 PM on February 18, 2006
I believe Martin Seligman in What You Can Change and What You Can't says that it's just genetic. I.e. the victims inherit it rather than learn it from their (parental) abusers.
posted by callmejay at 6:57 PM on February 18, 2006
posted by callmejay at 6:57 PM on February 18, 2006
I believe Martin Seligman in What You Can Change and What You Can't says that it's just genetic. I.e. the victims inherit it rather than learn it from their (parental) abusers.
That's just idiotic.
I personally don't believe it has anything to do with 'trauma'. People decide what is and is not 'normal' at a fundamental level when they are children. If they get abused as children, that's what they think of as normal and right, or at least 'not a big deal'.
The other problem, as I see it, is that are going to associate what happened to them with their sexuality, resulting in some pretty messed up sexual issues. So even if they get passed the 'molestation == normal' issue, they may still get turned on by the thought of it, unfortunately. I imagine it would be pretty difficult to deal with.
posted by delmoi at 7:29 PM on February 18, 2006
That's just idiotic.
I personally don't believe it has anything to do with 'trauma'. People decide what is and is not 'normal' at a fundamental level when they are children. If they get abused as children, that's what they think of as normal and right, or at least 'not a big deal'.
The other problem, as I see it, is that are going to associate what happened to them with their sexuality, resulting in some pretty messed up sexual issues. So even if they get passed the 'molestation == normal' issue, they may still get turned on by the thought of it, unfortunately. I imagine it would be pretty difficult to deal with.
posted by delmoi at 7:29 PM on February 18, 2006
Well, a lot of abusive relationships also have a very strong emotional bond. A messed up emotional bond, but a very strong one. So there comes a point where there's this assumption that any relationship that is emotionally serious will have an abusive aspect (this works both in terms of people who are abusers and people who seek out abusers).
At least, that's what I've seen from people I know who were abused,
posted by dagnyscott at 7:44 PM on February 18, 2006
At least, that's what I've seen from people I know who were abused,
posted by dagnyscott at 7:44 PM on February 18, 2006
delmoi wrote: So even if they get passed the 'molestation == normal' issue, they may still get turned on by the thought of it, unfortunately. I imagine it would be pretty difficult to deal with.
Just so. But, it can be dealt with. Not easily, but the alternatives are non-optimal.
posted by QIbHom at 7:46 PM on February 18, 2006
Just so. But, it can be dealt with. Not easily, but the alternatives are non-optimal.
posted by QIbHom at 7:46 PM on February 18, 2006
Have you asked yourself what your parents have taught you by action that you yourself continue to this day, without question of its moral justification?
Proverbs 22:6 -- "Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it."
posted by vanoakenfold at 9:35 PM on February 18, 2006
Proverbs 22:6 -- "Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it."
posted by vanoakenfold at 9:35 PM on February 18, 2006
From what I've read it's often related to power.
The cycle appears to go:
1) Adult with low self-esteem and boundary issues is drawn by the ability to exert absolute power over someone (a child) for his own gratification. Complete physical domination, sexual satisfaction, control over something or someone.
2) Child who's boundaries were dramatically violated and who was treated as an object to be controlled grows up to be -- surprise -- an adult with low self-esteem and boundary issues.
3) See number 1.
posted by tkolar at 9:52 PM on February 18, 2006 [1 favorite]
The cycle appears to go:
1) Adult with low self-esteem and boundary issues is drawn by the ability to exert absolute power over someone (a child) for his own gratification. Complete physical domination, sexual satisfaction, control over something or someone.
2) Child who's boundaries were dramatically violated and who was treated as an object to be controlled grows up to be -- surprise -- an adult with low self-esteem and boundary issues.
3) See number 1.
posted by tkolar at 9:52 PM on February 18, 2006 [1 favorite]
I believe Martin Seligman in What You Can Change and What You Can't says that it's just genetic. I.e. the victims inherit it rather than learn it from their (parental) abusers.
That's just idiotic.
I should have been clearer. Seligman is a psychologist who was referring to data, not just some wacko who was spouting off. "He is a past-president of the Division of Clinical Psychology of the American Psychological Association." I may be recalling incorrectly what he wrote, though, and amazon won't let me search that book.
posted by callmejay at 9:53 PM on February 18, 2006
That's just idiotic.
I should have been clearer. Seligman is a psychologist who was referring to data, not just some wacko who was spouting off. "He is a past-president of the Division of Clinical Psychology of the American Psychological Association." I may be recalling incorrectly what he wrote, though, and amazon won't let me search that book.
posted by callmejay at 9:53 PM on February 18, 2006
Response by poster: Hey, sorry: I should've made it clearer, but I'm not interested in your personal take or advice so much as pointers to theorists, psychologists, etc. who developed the important theories on this subject. I'm not dealing with this in my personal life; my interest is purely academic.
posted by ori at 10:35 PM on February 18, 2006
posted by ori at 10:35 PM on February 18, 2006
Have you asked yourself what your parents have taught you by action that you yourself continue to this day, without question of its moral justification?
Storing cooking oil in the fridge.
posted by delmoi at 11:33 PM on February 18, 2006
Storing cooking oil in the fridge.
posted by delmoi at 11:33 PM on February 18, 2006
Hey, sorry: I should've made it clearer, but I'm not interested in your personal take or advice so much as pointers to theorists, psychologists, etc. who developed the important theories on this subject. I'm not dealing with this in my personal life; my interest is purely academic.
Ori: I have about 9 collage credits of psych. My feeling, based on that, is that personal opinions are about as good as you're going to get. From a scientific standpoint, the answer is "nobody knows"
posted by delmoi at 11:35 PM on February 18, 2006
Ori: I have about 9 collage credits of psych. My feeling, based on that, is that personal opinions are about as good as you're going to get. From a scientific standpoint, the answer is "nobody knows"
posted by delmoi at 11:35 PM on February 18, 2006
What occurs to you to do is what you know.
My father "handled" me (got me to do what he wanted me to do) with sarcasm and spanking.
I've occasionally looked after small children for a few hours. When a child misbehaved, what occured to me to do was sarcasm and spanking. It was "what adults do." Fortunately, I restrained myself, but I couldn't imagine what else to do.
That's why I decided not to have children -- because I couldn't help putting them through what happened to me. I could stop myself from abusing a child for a few hours, but not for a few years.
posted by KRS at 11:56 AM on February 19, 2006
My father "handled" me (got me to do what he wanted me to do) with sarcasm and spanking.
I've occasionally looked after small children for a few hours. When a child misbehaved, what occured to me to do was sarcasm and spanking. It was "what adults do." Fortunately, I restrained myself, but I couldn't imagine what else to do.
That's why I decided not to have children -- because I couldn't help putting them through what happened to me. I could stop myself from abusing a child for a few hours, but not for a few years.
posted by KRS at 11:56 AM on February 19, 2006
When the only options you've seen are victim or abuser, it is rather difficult to come out sane.
IANAP, but I think that this answer is the closest to the current prevailing theory in the field of psychology. Children who have received abuse or witnessed it between parents tend to either 1) accept abuse from other people or 2) commit abuse themselves. The latter kind of person has made some kind of subconscious choice to identify with the "stronger" person, the abuser, instead of identifying with the victim.
posted by equipoise at 1:28 PM on February 19, 2006
IANAP, but I think that this answer is the closest to the current prevailing theory in the field of psychology. Children who have received abuse or witnessed it between parents tend to either 1) accept abuse from other people or 2) commit abuse themselves. The latter kind of person has made some kind of subconscious choice to identify with the "stronger" person, the abuser, instead of identifying with the victim.
posted by equipoise at 1:28 PM on February 19, 2006
The interesting thing is that most children who were molested don't become pedophiles as adults, but most child molesters were sexually abused as children.
I don't remember the percentages, but as an example: Only 18% of people who were molested become pedophiles, but 78% of pedophiles were molested as children. Again, these are not accurate percentages.
posted by Devils Slide at 2:57 PM on February 19, 2006
I don't remember the percentages, but as an example: Only 18% of people who were molested become pedophiles, but 78% of pedophiles were molested as children. Again, these are not accurate percentages.
posted by Devils Slide at 2:57 PM on February 19, 2006
Damn, I just read a paper on this. . . I think the terms you want to focus your googling on are "depersonalization" and "dissociation." The synopsis of what happens is that both victims and perpetrators can be come addicted to the opioids released in receiving and inflicting trauma. Sorry I don't have the names of the people right now, but that should help for now. I can email you the relevant bibliographic entries if you like.
posted by BrandonAbell at 5:02 PM on February 19, 2006
posted by BrandonAbell at 5:02 PM on February 19, 2006
Ahh, here's one of the biggies: Bessel van der Kolk. A relevant paper of his on what you're talking about:
http://www.cirp.org/library/psych/vanderkolk/
posted by BrandonAbell at 5:11 PM on February 19, 2006
http://www.cirp.org/library/psych/vanderkolk/
posted by BrandonAbell at 5:11 PM on February 19, 2006
The concept originated with Anna Freud, not Sigmund. The technical term for the defense mechanism you are referring to is "identification with the aggressor." The first google hit for that phrase links to a blog article which is a really excellent lay review.
posted by ikkyu2 at 9:44 PM on February 19, 2006 [1 favorite]
posted by ikkyu2 at 9:44 PM on February 19, 2006 [1 favorite]
Statistically, I think you'd have a hard time proving that victims of sexual abuse "often grow up into sexually-molesting adults".
posted by katyggls at 5:28 PM on February 21, 2006
posted by katyggls at 5:28 PM on February 21, 2006
Yeah, I've now seen the comment from Devils Slide. Just because most pedophiles were molested doesn't mean most people who've been molested become pedophiles. And I hardly think you could classify 18% as "often". It's a logical fallacy.
posted by katyggls at 5:31 PM on February 21, 2006
posted by katyggls at 5:31 PM on February 21, 2006
This thread is closed to new comments.
It seems like a very neurological thing where victims either:
- Become perpetrators
- Act as perpetual victims
- Some combination of both...
Basically it's very much about learned behaviors and neurologically reinforced "states of mind"... by states of mind, it doesn't mean moods so much as "what parts of the brain are in an excited state right now"...
I'm sure there's better books on the topic because that's all they focus on, but I've not heard of any... I mention Emotional Intelligence because I happen to have just read it, and it at least touches on a lot of related subject matter to your question.
posted by twiggy at 6:14 PM on February 18, 2006