Anonymous wrote:You are not a judge and jury. When the victum refuses to press charges, are you suppose to come to your own conclusion?

If it affects the way you lead your life, why yes, absolutely.

So glad your simple mind has grasped this basic concept.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Op here. The victim is now an adult, and I don't think she's going to press charges. There's no forensic evidence. My husband does support the victim but he's also desperate to find some solid clue to indicate either the guy did it, or didn't. He seems to be looking for some other reason she might be saying this. But I'm not seeing it. I believe and support the victim. I know there will never be an answer.

Supporting her while trying to find a way to prove she lied isn’t really supporting her. He needs to learn how to actually be supportive. Maybe reading more about what victims go through, and stats about sexual abuse and assault would help him understand her experience more.

Op here. This is a good idea. I don't think he's read as much on the subject as I have, and so isn't aware of how a seemingly good guy can do such a thing.

By the nature of the male culture (in men above a certain age) he will never be as informed. Many men are quite informed about the minuscule likely hood of a false accusation because that is what they focus on when publicized. Factual stats don’t mean anything to them if there is a possibility of a woman befouling a man’s reputation. They actually think that’s some kind of epidemic.

you divorce them

Anonymous wrote:Op here. The victim is now an adult, and I don't think she's going to press charges. There's no forensic evidence. My husband does support the victim but he's also desperate to find some solid clue to indicate either the guy did it, or didn't. He seems to be looking for some other reason she might be saying this. But I'm not seeing it. I believe and support the victim. I know there will never be an answer.

I think you tell your husband that you unequivocally believe the victim and you want to cut off contact with the accused and would hope he would do so as all.

If he can't bring himself to do that, then he can have a relationship with the accused outside of your home and your presence.

Anonymous wrote:Op here. I've never once known my dh to be a "rape apologist." Or anything like that.

When I look back I realize that some things that I saw were indications of the abuse. Dh never noticed these things as odd. I think he's naive.

OP, good for you for supporting the victim. Stick to your guns on this.

The perp didn't just veer into sexual assault/incest out of the blue. His background is likely a factor. Your husband was raised by the same family. There's likely some sort of family dysfunction that's producing incest (perp) and deniers (your husband). This family dysfunction seems normal to your husband, which is why the indications didn't seem out of the ordinary to him. Time to focus on resolving your husband's issues.

Well, how you and your DH are dealing with it is exactly how my extended family dealt with it when this all came to a head when the accused died. About 25% went to the funeral, the other 75% ignored their existence and death, choosing to support the victims (yes, multiple). One victim has decided to cut anyone who supported the accused out of her life. They others are choosing to deal with it differently

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You don’t have to operate in tandem all the time, you know. Let your husband go to events where this guy will be. You can refuse to go.

I agree with this. If your husband wants to hang out with this guy outside your home, so be it. But I would put my foot down and not invite him to my house or socialize with him myself.

This. I don't think it means that your husband has to shut him out completely. But I wouldn't be around him and I certainly wouldn't let him around my family or attend extended family gatherings. If your husband would feel better meeting him every once in a while for coffee or a drink, I would be okay with that (but I would hope that your husband would steer the conversation elsewhere).

Now if the relative took full responsibility for what he did, sought counseling to better understand how to make sure it never happens again and sincerely apologized to the victim (in a broken, 'how could have I ever done that' way), I might be more inclined to have some empathy for him. But someone who assaulted someone else and won't take responsibility for that. Nope, nope, nope.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You are not a judge and jury. When the victum refuses to press charges, are you suppose to come to your own conclusion?

She's not putting the guy in prison, FFS.

Shunning people is a absolutely a version of that.

Men who sexually abuse children are getting off easy with shunning. This "there's no evidence" crap only serves as complicity in abuse. Here's my evidence.....nightmares, flashbacks and trouble having sex with my husband who I love, 40 years after the abuse.

Just because you were abused does not mean that all who are accused are guilty. Wanting there to be some evidence is hardly complicity. Is there any other area of the law where you would be willing to condemn someone without evidence?

It really troubles me how many people are into social justice, protections for the accused, and concerns about over criminalization and false convictions -- in every area but child abuse and maybe sexual assault. If you believe in due process and protection for the accused, you can't be selective in terms of when that applies.

Take it to a thread about the law. This isn’t that thread.

Op here. This post is actually thoughtful, at least, and good for discussion. The posts that are assuming that because there's no proof, that the victim is lying are ridiculous. It's not so black and white.

The victim is just not a histrionic person and hates the attention this has brought her. I can't see any benefit she'd get from lying.

You can't support the victim and be friends with the perpetrator.

Families with incest will "protect the family unit" even if it will continue sexual asssults. They believe losing the family unit is worse than asssults.

I married into a family with incestvsnd have been through years of therapy.

I do not communicate with those that are "just polite" to the abuser. I fully support the victim.

But that is easy for me because I have not been socialized to hold the family together no matter what.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You are not a judge and jury. When the victum refuses to press charges, are you suppose to come to your own conclusion?

She's not putting the guy in prison, FFS.

Shunning people is a absolutely a version of that.

Men who sexually abuse children are getting off easy with shunning. This "there's no evidence" crap only serves as complicity in abuse. Here's my evidence.....nightmares, flashbacks and trouble having sex with my husband who I love, 40 years after the abuse.

Just because you were abused does not mean that all who are accused are guilty. Wanting there to be some evidence is hardly complicity. Is there any other area of the law where you would be willing to condemn someone without evidence?

It really troubles me how many people are into social justice, protections for the accused, and concerns about over criminalization and false convictions -- in every area but child abuse and maybe sexual assault. If you believe in due process and protection for the accused, you can't be selective in terms of when that applies.

Take it to a thread about the law. This isn’t that thread.

Anonymous wrote:I have a cousin who sexually abused me when I was a child - he was older and would babysit me. We see him at family gatherings. I am polite but would never let my children be around him out of my sight.

I'm not saying this is the right approach. It just is what it is, and I actually think this is very common. I have other friends who were abused by family members they are around all the time. This happens in families. And I would just say you should do what you feel is right.

Did you ever says thing about not wanting your cousin to babysit?

I’m just wondering because my DCs much older cousin sometimes babysits them, and while I trust the cousin, I wonder if my DCs would give me any clue that something was going on that shouldn’t. Dcs are always excited about this cousin babysitting so I have no reason to think they’re being abused.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You are not a judge and jury. When the victum refuses to press charges, are you suppose to come to your own conclusion?

She's not putting the guy in prison, FFS.

Shunning people is a absolutely a version of that.

Men who sexually abuse children are getting off easy with shunning. This "there's no evidence" crap only serves as complicity in abuse. Here's my evidence.....nightmares, flashbacks and trouble having sex with my husband who I love, 40 years after the abuse.

Just because you were abused does not mean that all who are accused are guilty. Wanting there to be some evidence is hardly complicity. Is there any other area of the law where you would be willing to condemn someone without evidence?

It really troubles me how many people are into social justice, protections for the accused, and concerns about over criminalization and false convictions -- in every area but child abuse and maybe sexual assault. If you believe in due process and protection for the accused, you can't be selective in terms of when that applies.

I have a cousin who sexually abused me when I was a child - he was older and would babysit me. We see him at family gatherings. I am polite but would never let my children be around him out of my sight.

I'm not saying this is the right approach. It just is what it is, and I actually think this is very common. I have other friends who were abused by family members they are around all the time. This happens in families. And I would just say you should do what you feel is right.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You are not a judge and jury. When the victum refuses to press charges, are you suppose to come to your own conclusion?

She's not putting the guy in prison, FFS.

Shunning people is a absolutely a version of that.

No, it isn’t. One takes away your freedom to do anything. The other takes away your freedom to be around me.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You are not a judge and jury. When the victum refuses to press charges, are you suppose to come to your own conclusion?

She's not putting the guy in prison, FFS.

Shunning people is a absolutely a version of that.

Telling someone they can’t visit or spend time with some members of a family is akin to prison?? Dramatic much?

Ok, you can no longer see your family because someone accused you of something. No birthdays, anniversaries, graduations, funerals.

No problem right? Just on someone's word - YOU'RE OUT!!!! YOU'RE GUILTY!