What is abuse? How is it determined by the normal rules of common sense? and
how is it determined by "experts?"
Lets say a child is playing happily with one or both of their parents, and
happens to sustain a bruise in the course of that playing. If the child
carries on playing, has that child suffered abuse at the hands of the
parents? Probably not, if you apply the rules of common sense. If that same
child shows signs of distress at getting the bruise, and refuses to carry on
playing, but instead chides the parents in the way that children do, has
that child now suffered abuse? Again, you might expect the answer to be NO,
and the child just does not wish to carry on with that particular game.
However, now we have to apply the rules of the "experts" who see abuse and
abusers everywhere, and would, given half a chance, convince the child that
something terrible had been done to them by the parents. This sort of
attitude leads to false accusations on a worryingly large scale.
Imagine a young family, where the parents have no hang-ups in their attitude
towards walking around their own home undressed, particularly when going
from the bathroom to the bedroom to get dressed. their young child has been
used to this from birth, and sees nothing wrong in it. At the age of about
seven, the child starts to giggle when seeing the parents naked, so the
parents then decide that it is time to no longer carry on walking around
naked, but to cover up instead. So has this child been subjected to abuse?
Applying the rules of common sense, they probably have not. Just try to
convince the "experts" of that and see their reaction. They would say the
parents had covered up because they (the parents) feel that they might abuse
the child. The parents would probably say it was to spare the child's
blushes, as you would expect. However, had the parents not covered up, the
"experts" would then say that abuse had taken place in the manner of
indecency. A no win situation for the parents.
Continued on Page 3 >