Clancy makes quite clear that what she means by "noncoercive" is that the encounter did not involve physical coercion, as in threat with a weapon or as in forcible rape, but rather involved an irresistible process of manipulation. In no way does she deny the emotional violence. On the contrary, she understands that this emotional violence is profoundly traumatic inasmuch as it induces the victim to bear the entire burden of blame and shame, alone and in silence, and inasmuch as it induces the victim to afford paralyzed compliance, confidentiality, even convenient self-obliteration afterwards, to future abusers who can smell that vulnerability a mile away and do not hesitate to exploit it.
What she rejects is the prevailing trauma model, product of a simplistic and blunted, black-and-white, all-or-nothing mentality, whereby the media and the hoi polloi make egregiously erroneous reference to priests "raping" their child victims; whereby victims who later allege abuse but admit compliance are discredited and dehumanized yet again; and whereby many in the helping professions discount emotional damage that isn't inflicted in the course of physical violence.
Thomas Doyle, a Roman Catholic priest well known for his rigorously conducted investigations and documentation of sexual abuse of youth by incurably narcissistic clergy and the methods by which the abuse was proactively enabled for decades by church hierarchy, has also explored in depth the psychological and spiritual dimensions of the damage inflicted upon children and vulnerable adults by persons of trust. This latter important work, however, tends to be ignored or damned with faint praise.
Clancy points out that relatively few cases of child sexual abuse are physically violent assaults. Likewise, only a few "noncoercive" sexually abusive persons of trust are celibate priests and only some of those are homosexual. The great majority of child sexual abusers are parents--ordinary, heterosexual, married, respectable-looking, well-liked parents, but only a tiny minority of those are ever outed, much less prosecuted. This is the big cover-up for which we are unprepared as yet to take the heat. In the meantime, it is precisely for this reason that when long-silenced victims finally cry out in despair--when they start to spill the beans, in other words --they encounter a massive, murderously crushing wall of denial on every societal front.
As do their advocates, who are denounced first when they speak truth to power in the academy and then again when they get published.
Clancy makes quite clear that what she means by "noncoercive" is that the encounter did not involve physical coercion, as in threat with a weapon or as in forcible rape, but rather involved an irresistible process of manipulation. In no way does she deny the emotional violence. On the contrary, she understands that this emotional violence is profoundly traumatic inasmuch as it induces the victim to bear the entire burden of blame and shame, alone and in silence, and inasmuch as it induces the victim to afford paralyzed compliance, confidentiality, even convenient self-obliteration afterwards, to future abusers who can smell that vulnerability a mile away and do not hesitate to exploit it.
What she rejects is the prevailing trauma model, product of a simplistic and blunted, black-and-white, all-or-nothing mentality, whereby the media and the hoi polloi make egregiously erroneous reference to priests "raping" their child victims; whereby victims who later allege abuse but admit compliance are discredited and dehumanized yet again; and whereby many in the helping professions discount emotional damage that isn't inflicted in the course of physical violence.
Thomas Doyle, a Roman Catholic priest well known for his rigorously conducted investigations and documentation of sexual abuse of youth by incurably narcissistic clergy and the methods by which the abuse was proactively enabled for decades by church hierarchy, has also explored in depth the psychological and spiritual dimensions of the damage inflicted upon children and vulnerable adults by persons of trust. This latter important work, however, tends to be ignored or damned with faint praise.
Clancy points out that relatively few cases of child sexual abuse are physically violent assaults. Likewise, only a few "noncoercive" sexually abusive persons of trust are celibate priests and only some of those are homosexual. The great majority of child sexual abusers are parents--ordinary, heterosexual, married, respectable-looking, well-liked parents, but only a tiny minority of those are ever outed, much less prosecuted. This is the big cover-up for which we are unprepared as yet to take the heat. In the meantime, it is precisely for this reason that when long-silenced victims finally cry out in despair--when they start to spill the beans, in other words --they encounter a massive, murderously crushing wall of denial on every societal front.
As do their advocates, who are denounced first when they speak truth to power in the academy and then again when they get published.
Regardless of scientific studies involving trauma, sexual abuse of a child by a parent or close relative inherently destroys family relationships. In the end, what could be more tragic and traumatic than that?
"Clancy’s research proposes a different template: the seductive manipulation, by a trusted intimate, of a confused and compliant child. She argues that societal emphasis on the relatively rare incidents of violent and sadistic abuse obscures our awareness of the more common, noncoercive type,"
Did Clancy say "noncoercive"? Her understanding of coercion is seriously lacking, as is her understanding of trauma. So, manipulation of victims by trusted others, where violence is not overt, is considered a trauma myth in her lexicon?
Is Commonweal this hard up for solid research on sexual abuse?
As a longtime psychotherapist who has seen many adult clients who were sexually abused as children, I have a few comments. Clancy seems to think that trauma has to be violent and coercive. It doesn't have to be and usually isn't with children. In fact, sexual abuse of children is seldom violent, and this may make it more injurious. The children are often told that they want it and enjoy it. This is very confusing. They are taught to distrust their uneasy, icky, being-used feelings. They are told, for example, that daddy loves you, when they feel only that daddy is using them for his purposes; he doesn't really care for them as a child, at least not when he is abusing them. They are taught they are valued only if they let the adult do sexual things with them. This is more damaging the earlier it occurs and the longer it lasts.
I've seen very competent, assertive women in high management positions who allowed themselves to be passively trapped in abusive relationships with men. Until they came into therapy, including group therapy, they didn't really understand why they drove away good, nurturing men and ended up with abusive ones. One woman was very distressed about starting her first job after college. In group she saw one major reason. When a child, her grandfather used to give her money after he abused her. Unconsciously, she had felt dirty, like a prostitute, at the prospect of getting paid for working.
Clancy seems to misunderstand what trauma is. It is hurting someone, treating them as an object to be used. Children are helpless, vulnerable, in need of nurture and, unfortunately are easily abused, especially by those they should be able to trust and count on.