other subredditssocialwork
How do you feel about sexual abuse victims going to therapy with their abusers to better understand the abuser ? There's a part of me that makes my skin crawl at the idea, but I want to hear other SW's opinion on this (i'm trying to remain open minded as well)
75 points | 92 comments | 1 month ago ago by Mountain_everest from socialwork
coffeeepls |189 pointswritten 1 month ago ago
It's a no for me. I feel that it's almost invalidating the victims feelings and retraumatizing.
Blorkershnell |31 pointswritten 1 month ago ago
Yeah no thank you. Only if that's something the person really wants for themselves and not some cycle of abuse crap where the abuser is making them do it or coercing them.
Edit: "Yeah no thank you" as a survivor myself.
[deleted] |34 pointswritten 1 month ago ago
Yep. Can you imagine actually asking a survivor of horrific sexual abuse to sit down with their abuser to better understand them? How backwards is that? If the survivor wants it and asks for it, that's something to explore but I haven't met one yet.
passerby19699 |1 pointwritten 1 month ago ago
What if the abuser is a family member like a dad or a brother?
I have a few cts who were victims of incest and not a single one has expressed the desire to better understand why they were sexually violated by their own family.
That was my gut response, too. But then I wondered, what if it happened when both the abuser and victim were young? Imagine siblings or former classmates coming to you. They want you to provide a safe space where they can express remorse, shame, forgiveness, and why?'s (but the abuser is deeply concerned about the consequences of their abuse).
And then I wondered, what about recovering drug addicts (or otherwise temporarily disturbed people)?
What if only one was a drug addict? (Because it comes off as even more exploitive).
What about any situation where the abuser and victim are both doing ok but still haunted and have stuff they wanna say and know?
riotousgrowlz |17 pointswritten 1 month ago ago
I think that's what restorative justice practices are for not just general therapy. You need really specific skills to be able to keep the sessions from turning into a mechanism of control for the abuser and I think as a practitioner it could be really hard to identify, especially if there's years of abuse for them to draw on. It's probably never a good idea in private practice.
There's a batterer treatment program near me that does family reunification therapy after the batterer has completed treatment and only at the victim's request. They also do restorative co-parenting coaching for separated parents after abuse. For both there is a therapist for both the victim and the batterer and a therapist for the victim as well as one for the kids. It's a team approach and requires a big commitment to accountability but so many victims want to stay with the person who harmed them so I think it's great that an option exists to support them but the batterer needs to be really ready to take accountability.
AcadiaPlay2285 |3 pointswritten 1 month ago ago
Is it a government funded program? Seems like it could be worth an investment.
I think it's pretty progressive and even bold of you to be asking these questions. There are a lot of hard opinions on trauma recovery and not as many open conversations about it.
lil_peege |92 pointswritten 1 month ago ago
As a survivor, I would rather chew my own arm off. However, it should be up to the client. But the therapy should be survivor oriented and not allow for any invalidation of their feelings. I don't see how it would be helpful for many, but I guess in some cases it could. Definitely not right off the bat, I think a survivor could get something out of it after years of healing and individual therapy. & definitely not with children.
quesoandcats |31 pointswritten 1 month ago ago
As a survivor, I would rather chew my own arm off. However, it should be up to the client.
Seconding this. Regardless of my personal feelings, if the client feels it would be helpful, it's not my place to stand in their way. I would have to refer them out because I do not feel comfortable doing that sort of therapy work with clients myself.
cryslea |12 pointswritten 1 month ago ago
As a fellow survivor, I agree. Child protection required family therapy upon reunification, which I categorically refused to take part in. I could not even sit in the same room with my abuser.
MDMAandshoegaze |64 pointswritten 1 month ago ago
There's something to be said for the power of restorative justice, and from that perspective, if both parties agree to the RJ process, and if the focus is on restorative justice and not psychotherapy I can see legitimate benefits. Otherwise this practice is unethical- victims of domestic abuse are not to be counseled with their abusers- they are to be counseled separately, this is no different as there is a victim and an abuser. If I was at an agency forcing me to counsel them together honestly I'd quit and find another job.
spartanmax2 |22 pointswritten 1 month ago ago
I like restorative justice too. But I think this is different than the situations that restorative justice is meant for.
Like abuse happens for years. It's a long term thing that involves a lot of manipulation. So I don't think it would works the same way as with other crimes that are often acute situations and less personal.
HuckleberryWatson |12 pointswritten 1 month ago ago
110% agree. Restorative justice is an amazing approach for many things, but I'd have an extremely hard time seeing it as appropriate in cases of sexual abuse.
MDMAandshoegaze |3 pointswritten 1 month ago ago
It's often used in cases where rape occurs, so there is potential to use it for sexual abuse, but doing so may require supervision from someone who specializes in RJ to utilize the tool effectively.
amiserlyoldphone |8 pointswritten 1 month ago ago
Restorative justice has lately been used for acute or less personal situations, but there's nothing about it that can't be used for wrongs done on a longer time scale. Keep in mind restorative justice is hundreds if not thousands of years old.
islandswimmer50 |29 pointswritten 1 month ago ago
I would be extremely concerned about the continuation of a possible abuse cycle within the therapy session as well as any power and control the abuser might still have over the survivor. I'd want to know why this has been suggested, who suggested it, the goals and intentions of a therapeutic session, why it has to be conducted conjointly and would still probably decline to treat.
No. Absolutley not. I think it's idiotic.
A whole element of abuse is making you feel bad about the abuser. To make you feel like he/she is just misunderstood and is lashing out but truly loves you.
I see no reason to reinforce that. I don't see how that helps the abused or the abuser.
Thank you. I see it as even more gaslighting.
FakinItAndMakinIt |17 pointswritten 1 month ago ago
It is a pretty hard rule that you do NOT do couples therapy if one party is abusing the other. It doesn't work, and can cause more harm, because the abuser will almost always manipulate the situation in their favor and can even retaliate against the victim for what was said in therapy, supposedly a safe space.
There is no past experience, no mental health issue, no trauma in the abuser's life that makes what the victim experienced at the hands of their abuser "okay". I can imagine that going through an assault (or multiple assaults), then having to sit through the person who assaulted me tell me that they only did this to me because of a rotten childhood, would cause me more harm than anything else.
forrestfire45 |5 pointswritten 1 month ago ago
I think this is actually in the licensing exam - no couple's therapy (or conjoint therapy) for people in active abuse.
wml253 |15 pointswritten 1 month ago ago
I would be hesitant. It would be heavily dependent on whether the abuser has gone through treatment and the adjudication process. The reason being, that it could be more challenging for the victim if the abuser could still go to jail due what is disclosed during the sessions. Additionally, the way the abuser may not view their behaviors as wrong. I've been reading about Kohlbergs theory of moral development in relation to crime and how often the level of empathy by perpetrators is lower which impacts their willingness to engage in criminal behaviors. If the abuser hasn't done any work themselves, they may not have the insight or willingness to be accountable the victim is seeking.
Z_as_in_Zebra |11 pointswritten 1 month ago ago
I think that it 100% for the abuser's benefit and is akin to victim blaming in my mind.
Rebellious1 |11 pointswritten 1 month ago ago
Thats a no from me.
RainahReddit |9 pointswritten 1 month ago ago
If a client (who was the victim) wanted to do so, clearly and not as a whim, I think we need to accept that. It's not up to us to tell someone what they will and will not find healing. I would want to ask a lot of questions about what boundaries we are setting, what will happen if those boundaries are violated, etc. and how to make sure we're most likely to get the outcome the victim wants.
changingtheworld1 |6 pointswritten 1 month ago ago
I work with child sexual abuse victims and I never allow the abuser into our sessions, especially while we are working on their traumas. BUT I also collaboratively work with providers who work with sexual abusers using evidence based practices (I can't recall the specific approach). What I've learned is that it's a long process, but once the individual has accepted their actions and the impact, it can be incredibly beneficial to have a session with the victim where they read an appropriate letter. I can't speak to the specifics of this approach as it's not my area of practice, however, I have seen a huge impact on my clients afterwards. It's never been forced on the victims and they are aware they can always change their minds.
skrulewi |2 pointswritten 1 month ago ago
Thank you for the work you do.
I work from the other side, and posted somewhere below my perspective.
_Pulltab_ |7 pointswritten 1 month ago ago
I listened to an interview with a woman and the man who assaulted her a couple of years ago and subsequently watched this TED Talk with them. I'm not advocating one way or another but I thought this may be of interest to some.
KryzFerr |15 pointswritten 1 month ago ago
This is not supported in research/the literature as effective or a best practice. It should not be used.
LeenaLuvv |4 pointswritten 1 month ago ago
Personally as a survivor: big ole nope
But then I always go back to right to self determination. That's a tough one.
jayson1189 |6 pointswritten 1 month ago ago
I'm pro-restorative justice, as long as there are qualified professionals involved and all parties are consenting to it. Granted, I think the scenario you're outlining is distinct from that (based on my current, recent academic knowledge of it).
There's some perspectives here re: perpetrators that I feel miss the mark though. Our current system of criminal punishment alone is not solving the issue of people abusing others, a new approach is needed. Yes, these people have done harm and yes it should be recognised, yes they should be accountable to that. But we cannot simply look at perpetrators of abuse as just evil people, beyond help, and inhuman. As social workers surely we need to work to end that cycle of abuse, not only by helping victims heal, but by addressing perpetrators and working through their problems to prevent further abuse.
FakinItAndMakinIt |4 pointswritten 1 month ago ago
I don't think the issue here is whether the abuser deserves for their own traumas and mental health issues to be addressed. The issue is whether you need to involve their victims in that process.
jayson1189 |1 pointwritten 1 month ago ago
I agree that there's no necessity for victims to be involved, but there are comments here that specifically orient themselves in such a way that I think do nothing to help end these cycles of abuse. I don't mean to imply that abusers should have to have access to victims, god knows I wouldn't want to be forced to sit opposite my own abuser. But I also think we need to challenge ourselves seeing perpetrators as inhuman, beyond help, and evil.
No I agree that dehumanizing anyone based on their actions is antithetical to our profession. Even if a person may deserve to be in jail, that doesn't mean they shouldn't be treated with compassion and respect as a human being, which includes offering them adequate mental health and medical treatment. People who abuse their partners or sexually assault others are a particularly difficult population to do therapy with. There is a lack of empathy and objectification of women that go along with both, which are ingrained in their sense of self. So you have that to address as well as helping them to shift their moral center and address whatever trauma they've experienced. I'm not saying it's impossible, and of course the reasons people sexually assault others are different for every person. I would probably refer such a person to a colleague who is more qualified to do that type of therapy. I think if the client is male, I'd refer them to a male therapist.
Sure, but why should the victim of their crimes be involved in any of this? The perpetrators are sick people who usually have their own sad stories. It would be beneficial to direct more of our efforts into prevention, yes. But after the crime is committed, it shouldn't be the burden of the victim to figure that out. The victim is now burdened with the lengthy process of healing from what was done to them.
And I fully agree with that, I just think we need to challenge our own attitudes when we orient ourselves in a way that sees perpetrators as pure evil and not people whose behaviour can and should be addressed with the aim of preventing further abuse and harm.
Many perpetrators will improve with the appropriate therapeutic approaches and programs, that is a known thing. Some don't want to get better, they don't acknowledge what is wrong about their actions. They will re-offend over and over. In these situations I am much more focused on protecting that victim, protecting future victims from this person, and helping the victim get healed and rehabilitated. If I wanted to side more with understanding and defending the perpetrators I would have become a defense attorney.
In situations of one-time spousal rape, where both people want to stay together and get through this, therapy can be wonderful for that couple. Sometimes people fuck up and feel remorseful and do the hard work to do better. But not all sexual abuse looks like this. Some of it is nothing short of pure evil.
Also on the topic: Ailbhe Griffith is an Irish woman who engaged in a restorative justice process with the man who raped her. There was a film made about her experience, which she played herself in, and you can watch it here. She was also on a podcast about it with one of my college lecturers, Dr Marie Keenan here, they wrote about restorative justice together also. I'm sure most people here are familiar with it but this was interesting to me because it's closer to home being Irish myself, compared to a lot of restorative justice info and content coming from the US.
spartanmax2 |1 pointwritten 1 month ago ago
If the thread was specifically about treatment for pepertrators then the tone would probably be alot different.
lessthanthreecorgi |7 pointswritten 1 month ago ago
As a survivor who learned about my abuser's experience, it did help me a great deal. I'm trying to figure out how to word it, honestly.
Basically, prior to learning about it, I internalized a lot of what happened to me. What was wrong with me that I deserved this? What had I done? Could I have done anything different? I. Me.
Then I rather accidently learned of my abuser's early childhood and life struggles. Learning this caused a transition. It removed that element of 'me' and made it about 'him' in the sense that there was nothing about ME that led to my abuse/trauma. HIS issues, HIS unprocessed trauma, HIS poor insight, HIS poor self control, etc. were the issue and I was the victim of all the culminated as a result.
Now, this is pretty traditional processing. Could it have happened without me knowing his issues? Probably. That's a big element of surviving trauma at the hands of another. But for me, it helped.
All that to say there would be absolutely no need for me to be in the room with him while he processes his own stuff. And at the same time it doesn't invalidate WHAT he did either and I would hope that is not the goal of this sort of processing. The victimizer is still and should always be held accountable. And I probably wouldn't have believed anything coming directly from him anyway; hearing it serendipitously from an unbiased third party was a major factor in its credibility.
So, maybe that's the goal. Removing the personalization and internalization? But, like many say here, I think it's an absolutely terrible way to do so when other interventions would serve as safer alternatives.
beuceydubs |3 pointswritten 1 month ago ago
I don't think there can be a blanket answer for this. It would have to be up to the individual victim, where they are in their healing, and being almost certain that this method would cause more good than harm.
bingumarmar |3 pointswritten 1 month ago ago
It is fully up to if the victim thinks that would be beneficial. Restorative justice is an amazing model but only works with the victim leading it.
J_Ryker |4 pointswritten 1 month ago ago
This seems like a blatantly terrible idea. It burdens the victim while offering the abuser a chance to make excuses for themselves.
EatTheLettuces |4 pointswritten 1 month ago ago
There's a ton of research on minimization regarding how abusers see the lack in severity of their actions + some on how CBT works with that. They can read those if they want to understand the abuser. Coming to therapy with them is just not necessary. If someone wants to do it, go for it, but I do not feel comfortable with conducting therapy like that.
grocerygirlie |4 pointswritten 1 month ago ago
Absolutely not, for the same reasons that we don't do couples counseling for relationships where there is DV. It runs the risk of re-victimizing the victim.
I would perhaps do one session if the client wants, but if you feel like it's not helpful, you don't have to be a part of it. If it was something my client wanted to do, I would refer out because I am unable to be unbiased toward abusers. I avoid that population on purpose.
wallyballou55 |4 pointswritten 1 month ago ago
I've seen it done effectively, but only by experienced therapists working at a specialized treatment program created specifically to work with both sexual abuse victims and their perpetrators. Bringing both parties together has nothing to do with victims "better understanding the abuser" — rather, it's the other way around. The abuser is present only to "understand" the victim's point of view, not to make excuses, rationalizations, engage in denial or minimize the consequences of their behavior. They just have to sit in a room and take it — sometimes for weeks on end — until the victim is ready to move on. Joint therapy sessions provide a safe place for the victim to confront their abuser face-to-face and say whatever they want. That can be very cathartic and empowering for those who have been abused. For the perpetrators, it often shatters whatever illusions they still have about themselves. Many become suicidal when the full consequences of their actions becomes real, but that's actually a good sign since it shows they are experiencing guilt and regret.
Joint sessions with the abuser & victim are like doing a high wire circus act without a net: it's just one of those advanced therapeutic interventions that requires specialized training and experienced professionals who know what they're doing and can accept the risks involved.
That's interesting thanks for sharing.
I'm curious though, what is the perpetrators motivation to go? If he/she is just sitting there.
wallyballou55 |1 pointwritten 1 month ago ago
The abuser was generally a family member, often parental, and most carried a history of having been sexually abused in their own childhood. The ones who agreed to sit down with the child they hurt did for both the victim and for themselves . They were told it was for for the child because their victim needed closure and the meeting could help them achieve that. They were told it was for them because they needed to face the consequences of their behavior, whether it be rage and hate and tears and million painful questions or a soul crunching silence and total rejection, they needed to hear and understand what they did.
Euclid1859 |5 pointswritten 1 month ago ago
How much you wanna bet this is the abuser's idea. Does the abuser maybe want to control what's going on in therapy and convinced the abusee this is a good idea? "Maybe if you just understood me better, you'd understand why I do this stuff."
kenziethemom |3 pointswritten 1 month ago ago
I'm actually more weary as a SW than I'd be as a victim. I probably would never suggest it.
However, I have always wanted to sit down with my abusers with a mediator of some sort, and talk. I don't want their apologies. I want them to hear how their actions affected me. I also would be ok understanding what drove them to these actions, to see how to help prevent (or reduce the chance of) this happening again to someone else.
But, I don't want them to apologize. My recovery is my own. If they do better after, then cool. I would want to do it for myself, and other innocent people.
I don't think it would be many people's cup of tea, though, and that's ok too.
SocialWorkerLouise |3 pointswritten 1 month ago ago
My understanding is this goes against best practices and is considered unethical. You never do any sort of counseling with a victim of abuse and their abuser. I haven't kept up with research in this area because I don't work in this area anymore, but I've never come across any studies that says this is helpful to the victim in any sort of way. I do know it's considered "helpful" to abusers in the sense that it gives them insight and tools to better manipulate and abuse.
Overall, I don't think it matters what anyone's "opinion" is. Look at the research and go with what is evidenced-based when it comes to treatment.
yskoty |3 pointswritten 1 month ago ago
I would have totally loved this.
It would have given me the opportunity to beat the shit out of him, and hold him for the cops.
I provide treatment to adolescents that have sexually offended.
In the case where adolescents have sexually offended younger siblings, they are not allowed back into the home unless Clarification has taken place, and only after then, is Reunification on the table. The model I use is 100% victim-centered. The treatment is done by the young person who has harmed apart from the people they have harmed, with an emphasis always on accountability and deepening of the understanding of harms caused.
Once someone is in a stage where they can take real ownership over their sexual offending behaviors, the victim is given the choice whether or not they want to participate. They will have their own therapist who is 100% behind them, supporting their needs and safety at all times, and who has 100% veto power over every interaction, and is hopefully encouraging the victim to activate their veto power as needed. At no point is the victim 'going to therapy with their abuser to understand them.' They are volunteering to participate in the clarification of the sexual offending; where the abuser takes complete ownership without the tiniest justification and acknowledges, as best they can, harms done.
Sometimes during this process, questions can be asked of the adolescent who has sexually offended about the 'why.' From my perspective, I work with clients to make sure that they can answer the question of 'why' while taking 100% accountability, and not providing victims a mixed message.
After this is done to the victim's satisfaction, they are given the choice of allowing the abusive sibling to come back into the house. With safety plans in place of course, ect.
I've had cases go all the way through and the victim hears everything they need to hear, and still rejects reunification.
I'm not sure what this is that you're describing. What we call 'Clarification' is technically a sort of family therapy with therapists on all sides, but it is not 'going to therapy with the abuser.' The victim has 100% power at all times and is represented by their dedicated therapist.
I am really glad you provided your perspective, especially when working adolescents. Sexual offenders is a population that requires a special type of person as does everything else in SW and the work involved is often misunderstood.
andthenagiantmeteor |2 pointswritten 1 month ago ago
I would be very cautious and concerned about how it could be executed in a way that is survivor-focused. I would not recommend it but if a client requested it themselves I might explore the idea. I'd have to really see a substantial case made as to what would be gained for the survivor.
machsh |2 pointswritten 1 month ago ago
If this was an evidenced based approach that had solid research, I might consider it but its a no for me.
iamababycow |2 pointswritten 1 month ago ago
As someone who has been abused, I never even want to lay eyes on my abuser again. I don't even say his name. The social worker in me wants to understand why he is the way he is but not nearly enough to ever consider being in his presence again. I get the general reasons why abusers abuse and that's good enough for me. The trauma will have always happened and no amount of understanding can take that away.
NoNefariousness5286 |2 pointswritten 1 month ago ago
No. A rehabilitated abuser would never ask to be understood nor involved in therapy.
Hedgehogworld |2 pointswritten 1 month ago ago
That just sounds terrible, just sounds traumatizing. The abuser NEVER should "have their story told" they don't deserve to, especially with sexual abuse!
Ladiesbane |2 pointswritten 1 month ago ago
Setting aside my personal revulsion at the idea (as a survivor), I'm trying to imagine what the goal or purpose of doing this would be.
When I think of ways "to better understand the abuser", I can imagine a variety of scenarios, none of them healthy.
Confrontation is one thing, but anything that normalizes abuse has to GO.
saucity |2 pointswritten 1 month ago ago
I've never seen this. There may be rare cases where it would help the victims, but I think overall it would be an opportunity for control and manipulation rather than healing, and be very traumatic overall.
May I ask where you're located? The organization I worked for was in West Virginia. We never offered therapy for the abusers, and didn't really want them knowing our location.
passerby19699 |2 pointswritten 1 month ago ago
Lots of sexual abuse takes place in families. Thus, there will be a relationship that continues between abuser and abused.
No. They abused you. They are predators. There is nothing more to understand about them.
I get the sentiment, personally, I really do.
And at the same time, that's not the whole picture. There's always more to understand, if someone wants to.
andthenagiantmeteor |10 pointswritten 1 month ago ago
I'm not in favor of the idea either, but "they are predators, there is nothing more to understand about them" is a scary sentiment that does not line up with social work values at all.
Exactly, especially since such a large portion of abusers were victims themselves.
I've worked with survivors of human trafficking, child and adult. In that world, they absolutely are predators. They do not see their victims as people, they see them as property. As merchandise to be sold...what more is there to understand about them? Does it even matter after a certain point? Is it a scary sentiment to view somebody who sold an 18 month old baby in the sex trade as a lost cause?
One of my clients' traffickers beheaded her family pet and put the head in her mailbox to intimidate her out of testifying against him in court. It was routine for them to tell the women that if they snitched, they would kill their mom, their sister, their baby, and had every intention of following through on it. They intimidated my team and I in court to the point that we had to be safely escorted off site by police. My opinions may be strong because I worked with the most extreme cases of sexual abuse and probably think about this much differently.
AtypicalSword |1 pointwritten 1 month ago ago
Depends on the clients state of mind, your rapport building, and your follow up relationship with them.
acarp66 |1 pointwritten 1 month ago ago
suspendedfromthemoon |1 pointwritten 1 month ago ago
NO -----
Peesneeze |1 pointwritten 1 month ago ago
No, this sounds asinine.
luckylolamalady |1 pointwritten 1 month ago ago
Dr_Mike_Hunt_MD |1 pointwritten 1 month ago ago
There's no fucking way that's a thing. Please tell me that's not a thing.
writenicely |1 pointwritten 1 month ago ago
Is this some kind of weird joke I have my own (thankfully nonsexual) traumas preventing me from understanding? Who the hell suggested this as a form of treatment?
hollybenzz |1 pointwritten 1 month ago ago
I can't imagine this being an expectation for a victim ever. I'm not sure how this kind of therapy would be useful to overcoming that kind of trauma for the victim. I would also be concerned about giving the abuser access to the child. That doesn't seem safe in the slightest.
georgiathomo6 |1 pointwritten 1 month ago ago
It's a no from me dawg. I feel this would re-traumatise the client and exacerbate the client's psychological condition(s) that are informed by the assault.
Others have said they wish to respect people's autonomy, but it would be hard not to question whether the person was still acting in the abuser/victim dynamic.
To be fair, the only other time I heard of this is when Vice aired a session of restorative justice where one party felt raped and the other party felt it was consensual. This particular case seemed fruitful, but it's not the same as enduring sexual abuse.
Like in sibling sexual abuse, I could see the victim meeting the abuser if they had ended up better but haunted by what had happened and wanted to know the result of their actions.
24SevKev |1 pointwritten 1 month ago ago
My initial reaction is helllll no lol
forrestfire45 |1 pointwritten 1 month ago ago
It sounds dangerous. I do not know how the victim of abuse could honestly explore the trauma in the presence of the perpetrator. If the therapy is initiated by the perpetrator, it sounds like some kind of extension of the abuse, and if it's initiated by the victim, it sounds like stockholm syndrome.
owostimky |1 pointwritten 1 month ago ago
retraumatizing, invalidating, and anti feminist
thesocialworkout |1 pointwritten 1 month ago ago
What you are talking about is akin to restorative justice. Some papers have argued for RJ's relevance in the context of sexual violence.
https://scholar.google.com.my/scholar?q=restorative+justice+among+rape+victims&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart#d=gs_qabs&u=%23p%3DvckbHk237mYJ
I'd argue that policies should incorporate the voices of those affected by the policies, not just practitioners. And this article documents some victims who were interested in pursuing RJ.
https://scholar.google.com.my/scholar?q=restorative+justice+among+rape+victims&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart#d=gs_qabs&u=%23p%3D4NjI-oLeGr8J
managermomma |1 pointwritten 1 month ago ago
That's fucked up
grizzlyhusband |1 pointwritten 1 month ago ago
I don't see how it could possibly be a good experience for the victim. Hard pass
Vash_the_stayhome |1 pointwritten 1 month ago ago
Like...I realize its kind of odd sounding, in the sense that we should treat everyone as if they matter, but in relation to sex abuse sort of stuff, I lean more towards, as the abuser the victim shouldn't have to care about your reasoning or thinking.
Its kind of like, "Do the survivors of a murder of a family member need to know the 'why I thought it was a good idea at the time' reasoning of the murderer?"
But...sometimes the oddest things can result in the survivor taking back power, maybe some perspective of "Huh, after listening to this person's shit about why they fucked up my life, I realize it had nothing to do with me, and...they're really pathetic, I can choose something else..." but again, not everything is going to be empowering hallmark channel moments.
blue_embrella |1 pointwritten 1 month ago ago
Eh, that's a no from me dawg.
Baxter1247 |1 pointwritten 1 month ago ago
When I interned with a DV agency I was surprised to learn that they don't recommend couples therapy of any kind because the abusive dynamics just carry over into the therapy. The more I work in the field the more I agree with this. I don't even recommend family therapy a lot if someone in the dynamics is abusive or appears to have abusive/manipulative tendencies.
420dogs420 |1 pointwritten 1 month ago ago
If that's what will be healing for the survivor, then of course.
Eartho2oAllie |1 pointwritten 1 month ago ago
Yikes! So much trauma! That's a no for me.
Joewren |1 pointwritten 1 month ago ago
This makes my skin crawl a bit too. I was at a training and I heard of training which has kind of a similar idea behind it.
It is completely anonymous counseling for couples where one is committing domestic violence towards the other. Instead of trying to remove the victim from the situation it instead says we need to value what they want and if they say we need to stay with the person even if the person is violent we need to work with them together. The idea is basically to remove any possibility of mandatory reporting or something like that and work with the couple anonymously together.
If part of the husband's violence is sexual I could see this maybe being the closest thing to what you are discribing that I have ever heard of.
anonbonbon |1 pointwritten 1 month ago ago
Hard no for me.
someshta |-2 pointswritten 1 month ago ago
I understand the perspective that the scenario the OP mentions sounds pretty unhealthy. But separately, restorative justice IS a thing, and all the 'abusers are all evil monsters, so fuck them' opinions being espoused in this thread are pretty disturbing and disappointing, especially in an SW subreddit. Stigma sucks, no matter who it's directed toward.