The kiss...

Professor Stephan Rössner about kisses, my free amateur translation of his article:

Carl von Linnaeus wondered what the kiss was.

”Why do human beings kiss each other?”

A kiss can be seen as a summary of the history of the human race, from the child’s breast-feeding to the erotic kiss.

Kissing each other is to offer your partner the soft and most vulnerable parts of the body without fear or anxiety.

While male and female sexual organs are totally differently shaped the lips look practically alike in men and women. The kiss is an act both parts perform with the same sort of organ, but this doesn’t mean that the kiss is lacking gender specific effects.

One has said that the kiss "sound the reveille" for an abundance of hormonal, neurological and muscular signals. Sex starts in the brain and the projection of the motor center in the brain for lips and tongue take much more space than for the sexual organs, which despite all fantasy all the same perform the same pattern like activities.

The kiss awakens sensations, give a stress hormone rise and of course influences last of all the sexual organs.

The kiss as an expression of a sexual invitation is at last an extremely complicated mechanism that is about finding the right partner. When we are kissing somebody we appreciate, this is last of all the result of a row of complicated factors. Researchers have found that we experience attraction to a partner of a succession of reasons, which are hormonal, social and generally positively fertility signaling.

Symmetry in the body and in the face is signaling a good upbringing [:-(]. Qualities we see in many film stars, something that make us experience them as attractive.

Interestingly there are factors making us not wanting to kiss certain people.

The kiss in its sexual sense is a starting signal to the foreplay. The one you are kissing maybe shall be seen in a much more complicated biological context than the meeting after the work, the partner at the dance pavilion or the making out (petting) after the school dance. When we 2007 celebrated Linnaeus it can be interesting to note that Linnaeus more than 200 years ago wondered what happened when men and women get together.

Love releases a succession of events in the central nerve system and leads to an increased release of the hormones oxytocin and vasopressin for instance. It can for instance contribute to explaining why skin contact, which in a kiss gives positive and emotional signals on a plainly physiological ground, makes us turned on.

In many cultures the kiss is something exclusively for the sexual act.

Where do you place the kiss then? The more similar rang the higher on the body you are kissing. Equals are kissing in the face, but with a greater social distance you place the kiss in a more distal direction via the hand, the foot and in the worst case on the soil the superior sovereign, bishop, pope or the beloved has treaded on.

Written to somebody I am in love with... Struggling with the English, both the spoken and the written... :-( He needs to have a lot of patience with my furious and intense efforts expressing myself, phew!!! Searching and searching for the words sometimes!

Vulnerable and fragile, but also strong, competent, powerful…

Of some reason I came to think, once again, of how fragile we human beings are, fragile, vulnerable and strong, powerful, competent… I will continue this posting later today I think. Starting it with Sting’s “Fragile.”

Fragile

If blood will flow when flesh and steel are one
Drying in the colour of the evening sun
Tomorrow's rain will wash the stains away
But something in our minds will always stay
Perhaps this final act was meant
To clinch a lifetime's argument
That nothing comes from violence and nothing ever could
For all those born beneath an angry star
Lest we forget how fragile we are

On and on the rain will fall
Like tears from a star like tears from a star
On and on the rain will say
How fragile we are how fragile we are

On and on the rain will fall
Like tears from a star like tears from a star
On and on the rain will say
How fragile we are how fragile we are
How fragile we are how fragile we are

Addition in the evening from earlier postings (slightly changed and edited):

From the earlier posting The vulnerable human being…:

In an article in a Norwegian newspaper it stood about Homo vulnerabilis – the vulnerable human being...

In this article it stood about what we today talk about as “the most vulnerable groups”, an expression that has been more and more common in the societal debate the last years (in Scandinavia at least) they mean. They write that the expression "the most vulnerable groups" can be a transcription for women and children, victims of abuse or nature-catastrophes, poor people that has been marginalized or the ones that are psychically or somatically sick.

And yes, of course these groups are vulnerable they write. But we are all vulnerable. Vulnerability belongs to our human beings basic conditions. In an ethical perspective the human vulnerability is a prerequisite, yes, even a resource…

However, much in our time can be read as assiduous attempts to deny and repress/suppress the innate human vulnerability… Yes, I think this is right. We don’t want to admit these sides in us!? We don’t want to get in contact with the power and helpless child we once were, the weak and incompetent child. The contempt for weakness. And this is quite natural, the feelings that are connected to these experiences of being a help- and powerless child, a child that was entirely handed out to her/his caregivers/parents and the clear, real insight that the child couldn’t change this situation, it was entirely impossible, how clever or sensitive or anything it even was – realizing the truth with all its implications, are so painful, so we want to avoid it at all costs.

But we have also got a growing insight about how much feelings and emotions mean for the development of ethical insight and responsibility they write… Feelings are also compassion and empathy in other people and other people’s needs and feelings (how many of us are good at that?). Without our feelings/emotions we wouldn’t be (aren’t) capable of grasping/apprehending the ethical challenges where they occur, neither in near nor more distant relations…

Or said in another manner: It is the fellow human beings vulnerability which makes the need for ethical behavior obvious or needed…

However, if I deny my own vulnerability this (being compassionate, emphatic) will be difficult…

We are back to a former blogpost, the addition in the end, about violence, not only the one between men and women (men being violent towards women), but about the violence between men too!?

And Bosch actually writes about this I think (denial of needs and thus our vulnerability, and the consequences of this denial, in our ability for nearness for example): about the different defences we use… One of these is to deny how vulnerable I as child actually was (a protection against realizing the real extent of what the caregivers actually showed with their behavior, i.e., how little they knew about a child’s needs, and that this also was a sign of lack of love!? A realization that had meant death for the child, but a truth an adult can survive, even if it feels as we can’t survive it), by adapting a defence she calls False Power anger or False power denial of needs. Or we resorted as children to the defence False hope: if we tried hard enough - then… Or blamed ourselves, what she calls the Primary defence.

It stands in the article about the mutual dependency human beings between… Probably very scary for many? Admitting ones needs and dependency on others (phew, I know psychoanalyst influenced therapists talks about this too!! In a similarly contradicting and confusing manner as our parents raised us: you shall dare to admit your dependency, but not be dependent at the same time, or in other circumstances be independent, or? And knowing the difference and being able to control even this. Phew again! And all this is a question of wanting or not wanting, and of intellect!?? How sensitive and compassionate and empathic is this from the therapist's side?)? Because realizing this would trigger early things, when the child’s natural and justified needs weren’t filled, and the feelings connected to this that had to be suppressed, probably before they even reached the consciousness? So this is very understandable, but no excuse for behaving badly…

Insight, fantasy and understanding form the “power of judging”… And it is here, in forming this “power of judging”, where our own vulnerability becomes a resource they write (in my interpretation). Oh, this can sound so very moralizing – and isn't this very intellectual!!

They also write about building rocket or missile-systems, both on an outer and on an inner level, i.e. literally and metaphorically. The dream about invulnerability continues to sow distrust and exclusion instead of trust and mutual obligations in all fellowships…

But the invulnerable human being, if he/she existed, would be inhuman they write, because vulnerability constitutes the human, constitutes that we are human beings.

But vulnerability is often presented as a lack, a weakness, as something we should help others get rid of, telling them (and ourselves too?? Blaming ourselves for being sch failures, so incapable, so weak, bad, lousy -the Primary defence?!):

“You shouldn't be so sensitive!”

And how many of us aren’t raised to think of others??? At the same time! First we are told not be so sensitive – or vulnerable, and then asked to think of others… We shall be both less sensitive and more!! Confusing!?? We shall make ourselves invisible in a way!? And then we are blamed for hiding our light under the bushel (sätta vårt ljus under skäppan)!!!

See Bosch on children learned to share at a too early age… (“Being sensitive to out children’s pain”, in the midst of the linked blogpost about “Biologism”).

I also came to think of Kirkengen who refers to the Hebrew Philosopher Avishai Margalit (Kirkengen also writes about bio-medicine!!!).

The last fall there was a TV-program with the Swedish professor in religion-psychology Owe Wikström in a talk with the Swedish author Torgny Lindgren on compassion. A couple of years ago Wikström’s heart stopped when he was at a gym with his wife (physician). Suddenly he was totally handed out to other people! At the hospital he started to reflect over what he calls “the era of self-centeredness”.

“The popular-psychology’s picture of the happy human being is extremely concentrated on the individual. This creates a very cynical society, where all shall boost [puffa för] their own selves and realize themselves. Those who don’t manage this are cast into the shadows”,

he says. Contempt for weakness again.

These reflections resulted in the book “Sonja’s goodness” (he refers to Dostoevsky’s Sonja throughout the book! I haven’t read any of Dostoevsky's books though), a book in which he seeks literature where compassion is described. Books mean a lot to Wikström!!

Wikström’s home site. About him at Wikipedia (only in Swedish).
About Avishai Margalit at Wikipedia. More about him with links to essays by him. And even more about him here.

It stands about Wikströms book (my amateur-translation, the text a bit shortened below):

"Nutiden överöser oss med slagord:

'Du kan bli framgångsrik', 'Du måste förverkliga dig själv!', Du har bara ett liv, unna dig storslagna upplevelser!', ' Tänk positivt!' [Halleluja!!].

Men alla vet vi, innerst inne, att tillvaron är oberäknelig. Hur mycket man än försöker så styr man inte sitt liv. Vi är, utan att vara särskilt medvetna om det, ständigt beroende av andras omsorger.

I Sonjas godhet frågar sig Owe Wikström vart medkänslan, omsorgen och samtalen om de goda handlingarna tagit vägen. Har osjälviskhet blivit omodernt? Vad sker i ett samhälle där individualism och upplevelsehets står i centrum? Är det omodernt att föra samtal om individens personliga ansvar för andra än sig själv? Förstärks självcentreringen av populärpsykologins tro-på-dig-själv-budskap och en upplevelseorienterad andlighet?

Utgående från en dramatisk personlig upplevelse diskuterar författaren hur det är att vara föremål för andras omsorg, utelämnad i den svages position. När tillvaron är som bräckligast minns han Sonja – den goda kvinnan i Dostojevskijs roman Brott och straff. Hon blir en sinnebild för det goda i människan. Samtidigt ger hon oss en föreställning om en typ av förebild som tidigare sågs som självklar. Att det är en litterär gestalt som på detta sätt väcker tankar om ömhetens betydelse leder över till en diskussion om böckers existentiella betydelse och deras roll som motkrafter. Frågor om ansvar och godhet diskuteras utifrån flera författarskap, främst Fjodor Dostojevskij men även Torgny Lindgren och J. M. Coetzee.

"- Det är en skimrande illusion att tro att 'ensam är stark'. När det kommer till kritan är man beroende av andra.

'I kondenserad form', skriver Owe Wikström i sin bok, 'visar varje sjukdom förödande tydligt hur svag människan innerst inne är. Den pekar på hur beroende hon är av and­ras omsorg, att få släppa kontrollen och förlita sig på att andra accepterar, förlåter och orkar ta över.'

Genom sjukdomen fick han alltså upp ögonen för 'det medmänskliga beroendet och en osjälvisk livsstil.' Han ville skriva om detta, och om det i förhållande till den egoism och självbespegling han tycker breder ut sig i samhället."

“The present time shower us with catchwords:

‘You can become successful,’ ‘You have to realize yourself!’, ‘You have only one life, allow yourself magnificent experiences!’ ‘Think positively!’ [I don't think he wants to moralize though, but he sees backs of this way of behaving, being Does it have to be either/or always? Either you care about yourself OR others? You can't care about both yourself AND others? At the same time?].

But innermost we all know that existence is incalculable. How much one even try one doesn’t steer ones life. We are, without being especially aware of it, constantly dependent on others care [but of course we each of us have responsibility for ourselves, but alone isn’t strong in the end]."

In his book ‘Sonjas’ goodness’ the Swedish religion psychologist Owe Wikström asks himself where empathy, care and the talk about the good actions have disappeared. Has unselfishness become outmoded, unmodern? What happens in society where the individualism and experience-excitement [or experience-bustle] stands in the centre? Is it outdated talking about the individual’s responsibility for other people more than her/himself (or for both her/himself AND others, my addition)? Is the self-centeredness strengthened by popular psychologies believe-in-yourself-message and an experience-oriented spirituality?

It is a shimmering illusion to believe that "alone is strong". In the end we are dependent on others. If not earlier so when we get sick, and old etc. Wikström means that in condensed form, as he says, each illness shows devastatingly sharp how weak man is at heart. It points at how dependent she is on others care, to let control go and trust that others accepts, forgives and have the strength to take over.

And that the one he/she is dependent upon doesn't misuse or exploit the dependency, sickness... How important trust is... Are all worth our trust?

Meeting a trustworthy… Genuinely trustworthy. And then dare to trust (not be so damaged so you can't then and when you need to rely on others!?).

Through the illness he suddenly got his eyes opened for "the fellow human dependency and an unselfish life-style." He wanted to write about this and about it in relation to the egoism and “self-mirroring” he thinks is spreading in society.

Yes, there are forms of this self-centeredness that are less "good"? Or how one shall express it?

See what Bosch wrote about sharing at a too early age…

See what Anna Luise Kirkengen writes about the vulnerable human being and the philosopher Avishai Margalit.

Made sick by silence/gjord sjuk av tystnad...:

Kirkengen writes in the chapter "Conclusions and implications" at pages 390 and forward in her book "Inscribed bodies...":

"...biomedicine is ignorant as to how life is inscribed into human lived bodies, and how lived bodies are inscribed in the social politics of silencing.

Violated humans are made sick by the silence and are sacrificed to the silence about overwhelmingly male sexual violence, which societies still resist becoming knowledgeable of and reflect upon. Both psychiatric and somatic medicine takes part in the silencing, 'the sickness', the sacrifice and thus, the violence. [this is hard words, but true I think! Even psychiatry contributes to silencing I think, all too often, even fairly often or even very often?]. In outlining the implications of these finding, I shall argue that not only sexual violation or any other violation of personal integrity, has potentially pathogenic impact, but also any structural humiliation of human integrity."

Kirkengen refers to the Hebrew University philosopher Avishai Margalit, and writes for instance, about what he says and means:

"He finds it more fruitful to construct a negative argument, based on the fact that human beings share the morally relevant characteristic of being 'something which can be humiliated'. This negative argumentation, he states, far surpasses in usefulness all of the positive ones /.../

According to Margalit, human beings no longer have Truth, God, Wisdom, Language, or the Law of Nature or History in common. Paradoxically, however, they do all share the ability to be humiliated.

A decent society is reflected, according to Margalit, in the way its institutions meet the most vulnerable of its members - or its non-members. Any measures which marginalize people stigmatize them. And a stigma is the public sign of deviation from the norm, be it the norm of honor, mores, gender, race, faith or function.

Regarding the concepts of honor, self-respect and self-esteem, Margalit writes: 'A humiliating society is one whose institutions cause people to compromise their integrity,' and, 'a decent society is one whose institutions do not violate the dignity of the people in its orbit.

My study provides evidence that structural humiliation of human dignity occurs within medicine [and in psychiatry and therapy too, because what clients have to come with too often becomes belittled and diminished, and analyzed and intellectualized and put a label or diagnose on, instead of being solved/dissolved. Kirkengen writes more about the power of narrative, and if these narratives are met with distrust, what this can lead to instead. I will write a separate blog post about that. And this occurs both in somatic medicine and psychiatry I think].

Whenever people deviate from the norm of biomedicine they become marginalized /.../ ...if their symptoms do not respond to presumably appropriate measures; if their health does not improve as fast as expected; and finally, whenever they return with the same presenting problem despite that, according to standard medical practice, it ought to have been solved.

These scenarios all lead to medical marginalization, regardless of their origin. It is known, however, that social stigma and shameful, silenced experiences cause health problems but, at the same time cannot be communicated frankly and explicitly /.../ In other words: socio-culturally originating suffering and bad health are not only misunderstood in medical contexts; they will also most probably be aggravated by being responded to with 'more of the same', so to speak /.../

Consequently there is a path from silenced humiliation in private to legitimized humiliation in public. There is a link between the private experience of being made to feel worthless [originating in childhood] - through domestic abuse [physical, sexual and emotional abuse and violation], subordination, exploitation, neglect or deprivation [in grown ups too, who reeanct what they endured during childhood; if their self-esteem was damaged they won't be able to protect themselves adequately and maybe also behaves self-destructively, if they don't act it out on others in destructive behaviors], and the public doom of being unworthy to receive help - through correct medical and legal objectification."

Also see what the ACE-study has found about adverse childhood experiences and their impact on health (so these experiences doesn't only or even always cause psychic problems, but can result in what we usually mean are somatic troubles, and in many cases they result in both, even among those we deem as "socially respected"; the ACE-study is performed on middle-class Americans, who can afford health insurances, thus aren't the ones in the absolute bottom of the society!!).

---

Den norska läkaren Anna-Luise Kirkengen skriver i kapitlet "Conclusions and implications" på sidorna 390 och framåt i sin bok "Inscribed bodies..." (min amatöröversättnng):

”… biomedicin ignorerar hur liv skrivs in i mänskliga levda kroppar och hur levda kroppar är inskrivna av den sociala policyns nedtystande.

Kränkta människor har blivit gjorda sjuka av tystnaden/tigandet och är offrade till tystnaden/tigandet om överväldigande manligt sexuellt våld, vilket samhället fortfarande motstår att bli medvetet om [dvs. kort och gott vill man inte veta om det] och reflekterande över. Både psykiatri och somatisk medicin deltar i detta (ned)tystande, ’sjukdomen’, offrandet och sålunda våldet. Genom att skissera innebörderna av dessa fynd, ska jag argumentera inte bara över vad sexuellt våld eller varför vilken annan kränkning av personlig integritet har potentiellt skadande effekter, utan också varför varje strukturellt förödmjukande av mänsklig integritet har det [Kirkengen skriver om reviktimisering av människor i somatisk medicin och psykiatri, dvs. klienter som blir kränkta igen och på samma sätt som de en gång blev, vilket lett till deras sjuklighet. Bara för att man inte vill veta om de grundläggande och underliggande orsakerna, inte frågar efter dem, inte ’vågar’ (??) fråga efter dem].”

Kirkengen refererar till den hebreiska filosofen Avisha Margalit:

”Han finner det mer fruktbart att konstruera ett negativt argument, baserat på fakta att mänskliga varelser delar den moraliskt relevanta karaktäristiken att vara ’någonting som kan bli förödmjukat’. Denna negativa argumentation menar han vida överträffar alla de positiva i användbarhet /…/

Enligt Margalit så har mänskliga varelser inte längre sanning, Gud, visdom, språk eller naturens och historiens lagar gemensamt. Paradoxalt dock, delar de alla förmågan att bli förödmjukade.

Ett anständigt samhälle reflekteras, enligt Margalit, i sättet dess institutioner möter de mest sårbara av dess medlemmar - eller dess ickemedlemmar... Alla åtgärder som marginaliserar människor stigmatiserar dem. Och ett stigma är det offentliga tecknet på avvikande från normen gällande heder, ?, kön, ras, tro eller funktion.

Avseende konceptet heder, självrespekt och självförtroende, skriver Margalit: ’Ett förödmjukande samhälle är ett samhälle vars institutioner får människor att kompromissa med sin integritet, ett anständigt samhälle är ett vars institutioner inte kränker värdigheten hos människor som befinner sig i dess omlopp.’

Min studie förser oss med bevis att strukturell förödmjukelse av mänsklig integritet uppträder i medicin [och i psykiatri och terapi också]. När än människor avviker från normen i biomedicinen blir de marginaliserade /…/

…om deras symtom inte svarar på de åtgärder som antas vara ändamålsenliga; om deras hälsa inte förbättras så fort som förväntats; och slutligen när de än återvänder och presenterar samma problem trots att de borde ha lösts enligt det som är medicinsk standard praxis.

Dessa scenarier leder alla till medicinsk marginalisering, oberoende av dess ursprung. Det är dock känt att socialt stigma och skamfyllda, tystade erfarenheter/upplevelser orsakar hälsoproblem men, på samma gång, inte kan kommuniceras frankt och uttryckligen /…/ Med andra ord: lidande som har sociokulturellt ursprung och dålig hälsa är inte bara missförstått i medicinska sammanhang; de kommer också högst sannolikt att bli förvärrade genom att man möter dessa med ’mer av samma’ så att säga /…/

Följaktligen finns det en väg från tysta förödmjukande i det privata till legitimerad förödmjukelse i det offentliga. Det finns en länk mellan den privata upplevelsen att ha fåtts att känna sig värdelös [vars yttersta ursprung finns tidigt troligen] – genom familjevåld [fysiskt, sexuellt, emotionellt], underordnande, utnyttjande, negligering eller deprivation och den offentliga domen att inte vara värd att erhålla hjälp – genom korrekt medicinsk och legal [fullt laglig?] objektivisering.”

Se också vad ACE-studien säger om skadliga barndomserfarenheter och dess inverkan på framtida hälsa. Dvs. dylika erfarenheter leder inte bara till psykisk sjukdom eller problem utan kan leda till somatisk ohälsa. Och i värsta fallen av övergrepp och misshandel till kriminalitet av den värsta sorten (Pincus).

Se också tidigare blogginlägg om tystnadens mur.

The Societal Denial...

the ACE-pyramid.

We have all been exposed more or less, if not physically or sexually (but more often than we can or want to recall to physical abuse and maybe even to sexual?) so emotionally, to childhood abuse... The reason for the silence I think, to the Wall of Silence. The ones speaking about those issues easily becomes surrounded by silence... And what we as grown up regard as pretty harmless events can have had another effect on the small child, who had to suppress the emotions which would have been adequate. This insensitiveness (and tendency to belittle and minimize, which the Dutch therapist Ingeborg Bosch for instance calls a defence, the False Power Defence, in this case I guess Denial of Needs) follow us to adult life if we don't get an opportunity to meet anyone who can help us to feel what would have been adequate.

The results of abuse on children are not only psychological, but also somatic... See what the ACE-study has found for instance. It's strange that this study's findings hasn't become more known and spoken about here and there, in the news for instance.

Someone said that it's easer to break a leg than the soul, seeing to the environment's reaction. But what we all have in common as human beings is the fact we can all be humiliated... It has nothing to do with innate strength or weakness I think.

Of course those with more in their "back-packs" from earliest in life are more vulnerable to later violations and abuse, and are "weaker".

Also see Center for Disease Control and Prevention - DCD. And the Norwegian physician Anna-Luise Kirkengen and what she has written. For instance the books "Inscribed Bodies - Health Impact of Sexual Abuse" and "How Abused Children Become Unhealthy Adults". Here an excerpt in English of the latter book (January 15: I hope it's the right link to the excerpt now].

I believe that speaking loudly about those things, inform about all knowledge there exists, to narrate your story (in a secure environment) can mean a lot, even for those most harmed, and maybe even be enough for the less harmed. And gain the whole society. I don't believe in sweeping those things under the rug.

Earlier blogposts on narrating Freyd on narrating, Kirkengen on narrating, and the blogpost "Narratives".

Not only Staff...

photos on Tor Erling Staff.

[Updated January 14 and 17 in the end]. Making my first real post on this new blog.

I got a tip from a friend this morning about an article about sexual abuse of children and a Norwegian man exposed to sexual abuse as 12-year old boy, the now retired Norwegian lawyer Tor Erling Staff (about him at wikipedia, though only in Norwegian), belittling and minimizing the damage he was caused.

His recent client is a pedophile, the so called "lommemannen", which has been sexually abusing several hundred small boys in Norway the last three decades, that has been caught in Norway recently, which was a big news in Sweden too.

See earlier blogposts about defences, because what this man is doing is defending himself against the truth to what he has been exposed to. He admits to the abuse he has suffered, he remembers it, but the feelings that would be adequate aren't connected to this. These he has suppressed? Probably immediately? And one can wonder what he has been exposed to even earlier in his life.

And the bad thing is that he goes out in public with this denial, he doesn't keep it for himself...

I came to think that Miller has actually written about Wilhelm Reich somewhere (maybe I come back to this) and his minimizing of the sexual abuse he was exposed to by a maiden in the family as only 4-year old, which she thinks is a protection against the utter pain the true realization would be. I think she is right.

Earlier blogposts about minimizing and belittling, and about Tor Erling Staff (both in English and Swedish).

I googled on him and in one article he says that the respect for the child is ruining, destroying the society. In another he says he has had sex with everything that can crawl or walk either it has two legs or four... Grew up in the upper middle-class? And seems to have been a very controversial lawyer in Norway... No wonder...

A female incest-victim in Norway had this man as defender, see here and here. She reacts over Staff's belittling and minimizing these issues! This woman killed her father 2000 as 38 years and Staff was the only lawyer she knew of and asked him. Her father had been abusing her sexually from she was a child up in teenage...

The article (in Norwegian):

"Ikke bare Staff.

Det er ingen grunn til å tro at hadde Tor Erling Staff vært uskadeliggjort, ville alt vært greit. Bagatellisering av overgrep mot barn skjer daglig, på mange fronter.

Tor Erling Staffs uttalelser om seksuelle overgrep mot barn opprører oss. Staff sier ting som er virkelig avskyelige. Han er helt på jordet når han legger skylden på politiet om smågutter blir traumatisert av å bli utsatt for orale overgrep fra voksne menn [Staff blames the police that boys gets traumatized by oral sexual abuse by men!!! It's the police's fault; if they didn't make this an issue there wouldn't be any damage he means?].

Hjelpeapparatet

Men bagatellisering av overgrep mot barn skjer mange steder. Blant annet i barnepsykiatrien, som ikke registrerer overgrepene blant de fleste av sine overgrepsutsatte pasienter. Da en undersøkelse av norsk barne- og ungdomspsykiatri ble offentliggjort for to år siden, kom det ingen reaksjon fra verken helseministeren, andre politikere, eller fra psykiatrien [investigations have shown that the psychiatry doesn't make any records over abuse their patients have been exposed to and dared to talk about? When this investigation actually was made public in Norway no ministers in the government reacted - of course!?].

Selv har jeg hørt en psykolog omskrive overgrep mot barn til Ødipus-komplekset (innlegg i Tidsskrift for psykisk helsearbeid 4/2006). Og jeg har opplevd at det har blitt brukt samme type uprofesjonell begrunnelse som Staff bruker, for å bagatellisere - i dette tilfellet fysiske - overgrep mot barn, ved at psykologen hevdet at han selv ikke hadde blitt skadet av å ha blitt utsatt for vold som barn [The author of this debate-article writes in a magazine for work on psychological health that a psychologist ascribed abuse the Oedipus-complex!!! And that a psychologist meant that he himself hadn't been damaged by violence he was exposed to as a child!! Very unprofessional from both Staff and the psychologist! I come to think of what the Norwegian physician Anna-Luise Kirkengen writes in the foreword to her book 'How Abused Children Becomes Unhealthy Adults' something about that her book is directed to all dealing with victims of abuse of all kinds and in all different circumstances, including that of lawyers! *see the bottom of this blogpost what Kirkengen writes, at the asterisk].

En prest som har tatt doktorgrad på seksualforbrytere og jobber som terapeut, mener at barneporno muligens kan brukes til noe positivt: som hjelp i det terapeutiske arbeidet. Barneporno er filmede eller fotograferte reelle overgrep mot barn. Hvorfor skrek ikke halve nasjonen opp etter en slik uttalelse? Jeg ble så sjokkert da jeg leste det at jeg skrev til vedkommendes biskop. Men det kom intet svar fra biskopen [a Norwegian priest/minister working as therapist with children exposed to sexual abuse means child-porno maybe can be used as something positive. Horrible.].

Eller hva med barnevernet? I rapporten Barnevernet og incestsaker fra Redd Barna og Støttesenter mot incest - Oslo leser vi:

- Fagfolk er redde for å gå inn i slike saker! Slik var det for noen år siden. Slik er det i dag, sier en saksbehandler. Mange barnevernsansatte opplever at de er alene på arbeidsplassen om å tro at det har skjedd overgrep [People are very lonely believing they are the one and only exposed to abuse because the silence around these issues.].

En fostermor var sikker på at fosterdatteren var misbrukt, men ble ikke hørt av barnevernet, som truet: - Hvis dere ikke slutter å være så opphengt i overgrep, vil vi vurdere å overlate barnet til noen andre.

Barneoppdragerne

Sammenhengen mellom fysisk og seksuell vold er fortsatt i liten grad erkjent i samfunnet. Selv om det kom mange og kraftige reaksjoner i høst da Carl I. Hagen, Aslam Ahsan med flere gikk ut i media og bagatelliserte fysisk avstraffelse av barn, forble dette et ikke-tema.

En avstemning VG gjorde, viste at hele 46,5 prosent godtok rising av barn. Det er åpenbart ikke bare Staff som ikke skjønner hva traumer hos barn er.

Oslos ordfører Fabian Stang, som selv er advokat, engasjerer seg nå mot Staffs uttalelser. Han sier Staff kan ha brutt Straffelovens § 140, der det heter at den som offentlig oppfordrer eller tilskynder til iverksettelsen av en straffbar handling eller forherliger en sådan, kan straffes med bøter eller med fengsel i inntil åtte år, eventuelt 2/3 av den høyeste straff for det aktuelle lovbruddet.

Men hvorfor reagerte ikke Stang etter Aslam Ahsans forsvar for vold mot barn? Oslo kommune har vært med og finansiert et senter for barn som Ahsan leder. Mener kommunen at de som forherliger vold er egnet til å arbeide med barn?

Mørkemennene

Så har vi enkelte kristenfundamentalisters bagatellisering av seksuelle overgrep mot barn, ved å likestille homofili og liberal seksualmoral med pedofili.

Stortingsrepresentant André Oktay Dahl (H) har fortalt at han får uhyggelige brev på grunn av sitt arbeid for felles ekteskapslov, homoplan og bedre homo-rettigheter. På nettstedet Gaysir kan vi lese utdrag av et, som påstår at 'homofile er like farlige overgripere mot barn og unge som de pedofile'.

Denne brevskriveren er ikke den eneste som ikke viker tilbake for å sammenlikne homofili med seksuelle overgrep mot barn. Espen Ottosen, informasjonsleder i Norsk Luthersk Misjonssamband, skrev i en kronikk i Aftenposten: "På det seksuelle området har relativismen fått en enorm innflytelse. Et tankevekkende utslag av denne relativismen var reaksjonene som kom til uttrykk da Tor Erling Staff ... fortalte at han som 12-åring hadde gode seksuelle opplevelser sammen med andre menn', og at 'få våget å hevde at tilfeldig sex som involverer et barn alltid er galt'.

Den gode kristne mann gjorde seg skyldig i brudd på det åttende bud. For Staff møtte motbør. Jeg var selv en, av flere, som hadde innlegg mot Staff da han gikk ut med dette i 2005.

Å kalle en tolvåring mann, og dermed ansvarliggjøre barn for sexmisbruk, er grovt. Å knytte en seksualmoral som er mer liberal enn mørkemannens til det å ha sex med barn, framstiller de aller fleste av oss voksne, heterofile eller homofile, som seksualovergripere.

At de mest skadelige overgrepene ofte skjer i den tradisjonelle, heterofile familien, tok ikke Ottosen seg bryet med å nevne. Men da er det jo heller ikke lenger snakk om 'tilfeldig sex', men ofte langvarige og systematiske krenkelser fra de nærmeste.

Folkeopplyserne

Staff bør ikke gjøres til den ene syndebukken, for å avlaste fellesskapet. Mye mer kan gjøres på dette feltet. Her har særlig fagfolk - fortrinnsvis de med kompetanse på traumer hos barn - en viktig oppgave.

I dag er noen av dem på banen og snakker om 'Lommemannens' antatte psyke. Men selv om den noe omstridte diagnosen dissosiativ lidelse skulle referere til et faktisk psykisk fenomen, der vedkommendes egne traumer fra barndommen er fraspaltet bevisstheten, så vet enhver voksen tenkende person at overgrep mot barn er galt og straffbart.

Burde ikke psykologer og andre profesjonelle bli flinkere enn de er i dag til å opplyse allmennheten om de alvorlige konsekvensene for mange ofre for overgrep, slik at potensielle overgripere der ute kunne velge å søke hjelp framfor å ødelegge barns liv?

Og vi andre kunne se litt på våre holdninger."

* Yes, Kirkengen in fact writes:

"I address this book about how personal integrity violations lead to illness to my colleagues who practice, do research, teach and write within the field of general and specialized medicine. I also address researchers and clinicians within health-related professions, such as nurses, psychologists, physiotherapists, midwives, pediatric nurses, and consultants in ergonomics. Furthermore, I address all professionals working with children, such as teachers, child care consultants, speech therapists, social workers, and special education teachers. I wish, moreover, to reach those in the legal professions. This includes the police because lawyers, judges and police personnel come in contact with people, old and young, who are being hurt or have been hurt in the past by other people's lack of respect for their personal integrity.

I also address politicians and lawmakers since they are in a position to translate knowledge regarding boundary violation into viable initiatives and laws. The initiatives must have as their goal the prevention of humiliation, violation, injury or abuse, particularly of people who are young and dependent. They must also aim to insure that all people, regardless of where they are or where they go, can trust that they will be valued and treated with respect. Laws must have as their aim that all people, especially those who are small and dependent, who have already been humiliated, violated, injured or abused receive the help they need, and in abundance. They must also aim to insure that all people who have been treated with disrespect or contempt can regain their sense of self-worth and self-respect.

First and foremost, however, I address this work to students within medicine and other health professions. My declared aim here is to point out in what ways a dualistic view of the human being and his body is untenable, how it leads both to a dualistic health system, one somatic and the other psychiatric, and to a dualistic conceptual world, divided into one classification system for somatic illnesses and another for mental illnesses. Medicine and related fields of study rest on this divided and dividing knowledge and students are trained to think those terms. I beg students not to allow this way of thinking to wipe out what they know about themselves, and, consequently, about other people as well: that they are unique individuals with mindful bodies.

In the hope that this book may also reach people outside the medical professions, I have chosen to use everyday language. Issues of integrity and violation are, in fact, themes all people share. We are all vulnerable, not just a few of us. In addition to our being mortal, what human beings have in common is the fact that we can all be humiliated."

Addition January 14: Silent reflection during a walk in the morning: Does Staff want the whole society to join his personal denial? Soon turning 75 years, with more and more weakening defenses? Maybe he even wants to convince himself that he wanted it, that it was good for him, that all children want this? As Wilhelm Reich did if I remember what Miller wrote right? Awful and so sad...

In the afternoon: Staff has the power and the position... He can allow himself to go out and say such things. And he is allowed too, even if I know people have reacted... I couldn't help wonder:think if Staff had been a woman. Could a woman do such a thing?

Addition January 17: more articles/opinions about Staff and what he has put forward recently here, here and here. People questioning and defending. Even a man charged for sexual abuse (of children?) is critical, even furious. Saying that what Staff has said legitimizes abuse, and of course the abusers

"...loves when something says it is ok to paw children."

Miller has written about successful therapy with men in prison for incest... If these men (and women) get an opportunity to question and view what they have endured themselves as (small, maybe even very small) children, they can realize what they ave done...