Reader's comments on this article Add a new comment on this article

from Understand Wednesday, July 21, 2004 - 19:32 (Agree/Disagree?) I have to agree with the person who said that people who leave on good terms usually have a harder time moving on. That said, it sounds like your guy has not really freed himself from The Family's psychological hold. Especially since his parent still believe in TF values, and also expect you to. I think he should separate from his parents for awhile so he can figure out more about himself. In the normal world, children go through a period of self discovery when leaving their parents household (e.g. college, etc.). Even if he's lived away from his parents, if it was in TF, it may not count for very much. He needs to figure out where his anger comes from, and deal with it on his own. If you really love him, and can be patient while he works things out, then talk this through with him, and decide what to do from then. But if his anger ever turns violent towards you, leave and don't look back. As for the sex before marriage issue, yes in the family sex at a young age was promoted. Also the family's idea of marriage is quite different from general society. But I don't think his wanting to have sex with you before marriage has anything to do with his past. Few guys in the world are willing to wait before marriage. The whole "if you loved me enough" issue goes both ways too. For you it's "if he loved me enough, he'd understand why I want to wait", for him it's "if she loved me enough, she'd understand how important sex is". Now for TF's views on a wife's position. As a girl growing up in the family, I swore myself away from marriage and children because I knew that if I did get married, I was destined to: Reproduce. Care for your children or hand them over to the "child care worker" on duty (even if you suspected they were abusive), while you work towards the home's needs. Un-selfishly sacrifice your husband to share with the other women, and possibly father their children, and/or contract their STDs. Un-selfishly sacrifice yourself to other men where you can either pick up an STD and/or another child. Separate from your husband if someone with a higher rank than you though it was the lord's will. I hope this is not what his parents have in mind for you, and I seriously doubt it. But in either case, you need to decide on what you think a wife should be. If you both don't see eye to eye (leave his family's opinion out of this one) than you will probably have serious problems during marriage. I hope you can work all this out with him, and really decide on what's best for both of you. Best of luck! (reply to this comment)

from Dr. 4- Shure Saturday, June 12, 2004 - 00:21 (Agree/Disagree?) Allow me to comment only on the issue of anger. I feel anger a univesral personal problem, the question is, Can one control it or not? My mom was married to a former marine well his temper exceeded that of just his new mate but I remember as a kid him threatning the poor new disciples with physical violence if they didn't do what he demanded, he was aparrently one of the shepherds for new recruits in a "babes" training center, i did shit in my pants, in asia men beat up there wives,another thing in alot of places is men being a bit rough during sexual intercourse, thankfully your ex- was not. my mom was beaten so many times by him, he even managed to knock out her front teeth, as a kid this was detremental to my memories...well she did bite him...I'm not saying you did enything to that extent but if your man has a problem with anger..I don't think you can blame it on anything, yes his past may have something to do with it, but when he becomes a full grown man thats his own doing. (reply to this comment)

from Shackled Sunday, June 06, 2004 - 18:38 (Agree/Disagree?) I can't speak for all ex members but I personally believe that those who left on "good terms" and remaind on "good terms" have a harder time moving on. It's not my intention to ridicule or mock anyone. Just the way I see it is, if you left on good terms then it's tough to rid yourself of the brainwashing; in a way you still are brainwashed. I'm not talking about having friends within. I still do, and they are aware of my disgust of TF beliefs. The reason I mentioned this is because you said his parents are still in communcation with family members and suggested he go on missions. Maybe he also hasn't been able to really hate and move on from the evil in his past. I think your love for him is awesome and the fact that you still hope for something might work out is unbelievable. But honestly, I wouldn't count on it. These personality traits and problems that you've experienced in the relationship with him won't just go away overnight. These have been implanted in him for years and if he doesn't recognize the source(TF's brainwashing) then you'll be left waiting. You asked if any of us have battles with anger. And also wrote this: "On many occasions he accused me of judging him, or thinking he was "bad" or telling him the things he did was "wrong" or just thinking he was "weird" or "strange". Me having grown up in North America and him not, he was very sensitive to being seen as "different"." I have felt like him way too many times. I just can't help feeling inadequate, strange, abnormal, stupid, etc... I've been named them all a number of times as well, including by my parents. It's been 6 years since I left and gradually I've become more confident and comfortable with who I am. But those memories always pop up when I'm being challenged with something and it pisses me off. As for anger. I've noticed I get angry mainly at those I'm familiar with. I don't know why but all of a sudden, not often, my anger will make me say things that are unimaginable at close friends. It's usually when they take a position of authority and I can only think that it's related to past adult shepherds. TF messed us all up concerning sex. I remember being taught about it from a very young age and experiencing it. I remember hearing of abuses, never witnessed it. When I was a teen I saw other teenagers taking advantage of the perverse beliefs. This made me see sex as dirty and a lust that needed to be satisfied. The fact that he remained with you and agreed to wait till getting married is commendable and should not be forgotten. This is not what we were taught and for many of us is a strange and incorrect belief. (reply to this comment)

from EyesWideShut Wednesday, June 02, 2004 - 08:23 (Agree/Disagree?) I can't think of a reason why this girl would be a fake. That said, I think she sounds like your average American Christian girl and I feel for her. It's difficult for my husband understanding me sometimes, and he's an exmember who knows where I came from. Just the other night, were were watching TV--some documentary about sexual abuse--and when it was over we rolled over. He wanted to cuddle but I couldn't let him touch me. No matter how hard I tried to rid my mind of the awful memories, I relived something through the images on that screen, and wasn't better until morning. He accepted it but was hurt and couldn't understand that it had nothing to do with him. Someone mentioned that it's rare for exmember males to have the same qualms with their past as us females do, but I have meet a fair few who are equally as fucked up as some of the most damaged females I know. I know one who's mother used to come home from FFing, and having not "gotten off" she's visit him in his bed nightly to finish the job. He's never going to get over that and I doubt any woman will be able to handle the odd young man he has become, as sweet as he is. Some guys were terribly abused with harsh dicipline, and we were all beaten down in the same ways every day. As for fond memories of our past, we all have them. Some more than others. And sometimes the comfort of familiarity can be confused with happiness. All non-members would better understand us if they realized we are in completely unfamiliar territory every day. Moving back to the US is new, and all its culture, or lack thereof. I'm not going to list everything now because I have to get to work, but you know what I'm talking about. Sexually our aftershocks range from completely detached to very clingy, and sometimes both in the same hour. Most of us will settle down with one person, or have, but will always have promiscuity in our make up, miss it, and will have to fight it as long as we live if we hope to hold on to our relationships. I wish you well with your dilemma. If you love him, don't give up. He may yet come around, or you may be able to learn to live with his rough edges. Ignore the parents. That's the first thing you learn. There is no sense to be made there and they will grieve you. There is no overnight remedy for a cult baby. His world is upside down, his landmarks are crushed, he's lost. Even love can't fix this one, sweety. Give it time, if you have it to spare. (reply to this comment)

From Lynne Wednesday, June 02, 2004, 15:25 (Agree/Disagree?) Thank you for sharing your comments EWS. Many of the comments people have shared remind me of behaviour he has exhibited that I've never really been able to get, like the completely detached/totally clingy mood swings, and feeling like a duck out of water whenever he comes to North America. As for abuse... I really don't know much. He has said that he never witnessed sexual abuse, but I do know he was harshly disciplined. At least I think it was harsh - paddeling, verbal berating for minor offenses, the few priviledges granted often taken away for speaking back to authority or the like, often being told he was the bad kid of the group... I think these were more serious than he lets one since he rarely shares about it and tends to lighten things up. Of course, these things sound pretty much like par for the course from what I'm hearing. Thanks all for sharing your thoughts. I now realize that I can't even begin to comprehend the things he (and you all) have gone through. I just hope that maybe I can be there to help him through it, or just to love him through it over time...(reply to this comment)

From lacy Wednesday, June 02, 2004, 13:17 (Agree/Disagree?) Eyes wide shut, are you saying that this guy's mother would come into his bed and do stuff with her son, sexually?? I find that a bit hard to believe.--Even for a demented member of TF. (reply to this comment)

From EyesWideShut Wednesday, June 02, 2004, 17:26 (Agree/Disagree?) That's what I'm saying. It's the only case I know of first hand like it. Not common. But true. I swear on my son's life. And this guy has been a very good friend in the past, so confided in me about it. It's something I could hardley believe till he brought up a few reminders about when we lived together, and his mother was there, and I had no doubt. I'm not bringing it up as a sweeping generalization about Family wierdness. I believe this is a relatively isolated incident, but it did happen.(reply to this comment)

From Alone Wednesday, July 21, 2004, 18:29 (Agree/Disagree?) Remember back when we still had the multi-colored, paperback letters? I remember a Q/A where a woman write in to 'Dad' for advice on how to deal with her son-her son that lacked self esteem and needed a deeper level of love and attention. I recall being shocked (at 7, and reading this stuff!!) that she asked whether she could 'share' with her son? The answer (from someone in FS) was that it was probably not a good idea to have sex with her son because he's 'lonely'. It was amazing, though, how the attitude of the Family was one that lent itself to immorality and the ability to accept immorality. It's a shame. --Cedar Joy(reply to this comment)

From Alone Wednesday, July 21, 2004, 18:27 (Agree/Disagree?) Remember back when we still had the multi-colored, paperback letters? I remember a Q/A where a woman write in to 'Dad' for advice on how to deal with her son-her son that lacked self esteem and needed a deeper level of love and attention. I recall being shocked that she asked whether she could 'share' with her son? The answer (from someone in FS) was that it was probably not a good idea to have sex with her sone because he's 'lonely'. It was amazing, though, how the attitude of the Family was one that lent itself to immorality and the ability to confront issues that would have never been put on paper before. It's a shame. --Cedar Joy(reply to this comment)

From Banshee Wednesday, June 02, 2004, 17:13 (Agree/Disagree?) The interesting thing about incest is its evolving definition in today's world. Due to personal experience while in the Family, I have done some reading on incest regarding its damage and also healing and recovering from it. More and more experts are broadening the definition of incest and its victims. While the traditional definition of incest (and certainly the more repulsive) is sexual activity between blood relations, more experts are taking into consideration the factors of trust, power, and authority related to child sexual abuse. For example, step-parents. One such definition is: "the imposition of sexually inappropriate acts, or acts with sexual overtones ... by one or more persons who derive authority through ongoing emotional bonding with that child." This definition expands the traditional definition of incest to include sexual abuse by anyone who has authority or power over the child. This definition of incest includes as perpetrators: immediate/extended family members, babysitters, school teachers, scout masters, priests/ministers, etc.” A website called “Incest Survivors Anonymous” has a definition as follows: “A betrayal of trust in overt and covert sexual contact or act which possibly includes: touching or non-touching, verbal seduction or abuse, anal or vaginal intercourse, oral sex, sodomy, manual stimulation, direct threats, implied threats, or other forms of abuse between people who are related genetically, by marriage, by living arrangements, or in whom a child perceives a trusting relationship…anyone either known or a stranger with a power advantage of any kind over the child…or anyone whose employment or social standing puts them in a position of power over a child. This also includes any adult in a position of power who betrays the trust of a trusting adult. When this trust between a child and an older child, sibling, parent-figure or adult is violated, that act becomes incestuous.” In other words, because of the communal way we lived, and the very extreme “feudal” system of authority in TF, by today’s definition of incest, any one of us who suffered any of the forms of sexual abuse listed above has been a victim of incest. From what I have read, it seems a prevailing opinion that children who have been victims of incest often suffer in a greater degree due to the added confusion and pain of the betrayal of trust and power abuse, and the more engulfing sense of helplessness. This certainly rings true for us. It does seem to better explain the complexity of our recovery, and why our pain runs so much deeper. Perhaps this would help to enlighten some of the more insensitive ones who try to wave off our experiences with a “lots-of-people-today-get-raped-get-over-it” attitude to the extent of our injuries. (reply to this comment)

From Wolf Saturday, June 05, 2004, 13:25 (Agree/Disagree?) This may be considered a banal comment but it’s interesting that incest generally seems to be the most popular category for erotic stories on the web. Apparently there are lots of people out there with dirty minds. (reply to this comment)

From Vicky Saturday, June 05, 2004, 13:31 (Agree/Disagree?) Probably because it's the last truly forbidden love. Any other obstacles can be overcome if one's determination is strong enough...(reply to this comment)

From Vicky Saturday, June 05, 2004, 13:36 (Agree/Disagree?) Just to clarify, in the above statement I am in no way attempting to validate incest, particularly incestuous abuse! I am merely acknowledging the extraordinary difficulties faced by those adults who are taken over by love for a close relative. What a disturbing and complex situation to find oneself in! Incidentally, a program on incestuous attraction will be aired this week on TV here in the UK, and as it coincides so brilliantly with this discussion I will be watching it. I imagine it will make very interesting and perhaps also difficult veiwing.(reply to this comment)

From Joe H Wednesday, June 02, 2004, 18:02 (Agree/Disagree?) This is probably not the time or the place to argue semantics, but I personally take issue with this new, overly-broadened definition of incest. I would appreciate if you would post the source of your new definition. For the record, here's how the American Heritage Dictionary (and the rest of the English-speaking world) defines incest: Sexual relations between persons who are so closely related that their marriage is illegal or forbidden by custom. The statutory crime of sexual relations with such a near relative. (reply to this comment)

From Jerseygirl Friday, June 04, 2004, 08:01 (Agree/Disagree?) You don't say. And here I've been trusting in existers definition of incest which would be ex cult members participating in sexual relations with other ex cult members. Thank you American Heritage Dictionary for helping me to understand!(reply to this comment)

From Tsk, tsk Friday, June 04, 2004, 08:18 (Agree/Disagree?) That's what you get for not only not putting thy trust in God, but in a dude who is a living obituary for Him!(reply to this comment)

From Banshee Wednesday, June 02, 2004, 20:53 (Agree/Disagree?) Okay, so here are some sources regarding incest definition. My comment was based on books that I had read, and I quoted E. Sue Blume. I am posting here the review of that book, as well as some other books or internet sites that mention this "new definition." I hope this helps to clear up that it isn't my definition, but obviously a fairly commonly examined definition. Secret Survivors--Written by E. Sue Blume (1998) ABOUT THIS BOOK SECRET SURVIVORS is the first book to expand the definition of incest to include any adult abuser and to focus on what incest does to survivors. E. Sue Blume shows how incest is often at the root of such problems as depression, sexual and eating disorders, drug and alcohol abuse, and phobias and panic disorders. Using this information and the author's guidance, survivors can identify themselves, develop alternative, nondestructive survival techniques and begin again on a new path toward a rich and empowered life. From Library Journal A therapist who works with incest victims, Blume offers help, advice, and support while exploring in depth the devastation wrought by this crime. She expands the definition of incest to include sexual abuse perpetrated by any caregiver (including teachers, relatives, or neighbors). Reference: Christine Courtois (March 1996) Healing the Incest Wound Incest between an adult and a related child or adolescent is now recognized as the most prevalent form of child sexual abuse and as one with great potential for damage to the child. Incest constitutes abuse when a child of any age is exploited by an older person for his/her own satisfaction while disregarding the child’s own developmental immaturity and inability to understand the sexual behavior. The victim is unable to give informed consent due to the authority of the adult, her/his own dependent and less powerful status, and the age difference between them. A comprehensive definition of incest was developed based on research, and is useful due to its inclusiveness. Incest refers to sexual contact with a person who would be considered an ineligible partner because of his blood and/or social ties (i.e., kin) to the subject and her/his family. The term encompasses, then, several categories of partners, including father, stepfather, grandfather, uncles, siblings, cousins, in-laws, and what we call “quasi-family.” The last category includes parental and family friends (e.g., mother’s sexual partner). The incest taboo applies in a weakened form to all these categories in that the “partner” represents someone from whom the child should rightfully expect warmth or protection and sexual distance. Sexual behavior recorded as positive incest ranged from intercourse with consent; intercourse by force; attempted intercourse or seduction; molestation, primarily fondling of breasts and genitals, and exposure. Other sexual behaviors included as intercourse are, namely, all penetration, anal, oral, and vaginal, both passive and active. Cunnilingus and fellatio are not uncommon activities, nor is sodomy. ----------------- Reference: Heidi Vanderbilt, (1992, February). "Incest: A Chilling Report." p. 49-77. One definition describes incest as: "...the sexual abuse of a child by a relative or other person in a position of trust and authority over the child. It is a violation of the child where he or she lives -- literally and metaphorically. A child molested by a stranger can run home for help and comfort. A victim of incest cannot" (Vanderbilt, 1992, p. 51). Perpetrators of incest can be aunts, uncles, cousins, nieces, nephews, step-parents, step-children, grandparents and grandchildren. In addition, incest offenders can be persons without a direct blood or legal relationship to the victim such as a parent's lover or live-in nanny, housekeeper, etc. -- as this abuse takes place within the confines of the family and the home environment (Vanderbilt, 1992). --------------- Reference: http://www.menstuff.org/issues/byissue/incestmolest.html Once referred to sexual activity or intercourse between close blood relatives. However, an expanded version is given here: a violation of trust between a caregiver and a child. It is abusive because of the power an adult has over the child. It involves sexually inappropriate acts or those with sexual overtones involving a child and a person who has authority by virtue of an ongoing emotional bond - a family member, extended family member or other person known to them whom they were led to trust. ------------- Reference: http://www.vday.org/contents/violence/glossary/incest Incest as defined by the Survivors of Incest Anonymous World Services Offices Incest is any sexual behavior imposed on the child by a family member, including extended family members such as teachers or clergy. Sexual contacts may include a variety of verbal and/or physical behaviors; penetration is not necessary for the experience to count as incest. Incest as defined by the Domestic Violence and Incest Resource Center Incest happens in the family when an adult or older adolescent uses a child or young person for their sexual gratification. It can include fondling, exhibitionism, intercourse, oral or anal sex, masturbation, photographing naked children, or child prostitution. Incest as defined by Adult Children of Alcoholics (ACOA) Incest Survivors Incest is an act of power against a child that takes a sexual form. We define incestuous acts to include suggestive or seductive talk or behavior directed at a child; any unwanted invasive touching, including kissing, wrestling and tickling; non-medical enemas; showing a child pornography or nudity; sexual fondling; oral sex; sodomy; and/or intercourse. Incest survivors come from both sexes and all economic and social backgrounds, races, religions nationalities and sexual preferences. Reference: Michael Lew (1990), Victims No Longer: Men Recovering from Incest and Other Child Abuse. The traditional definition of incest is sexual activity between blood relatives. Michael Lew's definition of incest is more inclusive. Incest is a violation of a position of trust, power, and protection. Sex between blood relatives is just one part of a more inclusive view of incest. Incest differs from other forms of sexual abuse in that the perpetrator is assumed to stand in a protective (parental) role to the victim. It is not necessary that the "parenting" figure be a family member. The perpetrator could be a relative by blood or marriage, parent, stepparent, older sibling, neighbor, family friend, teacher, member of the clergy, therapist, physician, baby-sitter, camp counselor, or any other care-taker. (reply to this comment)

From lacy Thursday, June 03, 2004, 08:20 (Agree/Disagree?) Thanks for taking the time to post all of that, Banshee. It is very interesting to say the least. I had no idea how general this definition has become. But I have to say, it's definately makes sense. The child has no way of knowing the parent is not their blood, especially if the parent has not told them. -And even if the kid did know it wasn't their real relative (or whoever), it can still cause endless damage to the child. (reply to this comment)

From lacy Wednesday, June 02, 2004, 18:58 (Agree/Disagree?) I have to agree with Joe. Incest is only incest if it is blood relative to blood relative. (reply to this comment)

From moon beam Thursday, June 03, 2004, 07:09 (Agree/Disagree?) Dictionary aside;I agree with banshee, because the end effect is the same. If your adopted or have no memory of your blood dad and a step-dad is thought of as your blood dad then it makes no difference to the child. (For me it was a bit easier on one level to deal with, knowing that he wasn't my real father, on the other hand why didn't my real father protect me!?)(reply to this comment)

From Ne Oublie Friday, June 04, 2004, 08:56 (Agree/Disagree?) Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that the laws prohibiting incest were designed for blood relatives, due to the statistical likelihood of genetic disorders, or other problems related to breeding between close relatives. These laws apply equally to consenting adult sexual partners as to underage children. The laws which are designed to protect children from emotional trauma, and such, are those that prohibit sex between adults and minors, or those that target abuse. So, while I agree that sexual abuse from an adoptive or step-parent can be similarly damaging emotionally, there is a very big difference in the potential physical repercussions, and therefore I would have to conclude that it is inaccurate to refer to it as incest.(reply to this comment)

From Banshee Wednesday, June 02, 2004, 18:53 (Agree/Disagree?) As I mentioned in my comments, this is not the "traditional" definition. I am aware of the definition that nearly every dictionary gives for incest. This is not "my" new definition. I was just making the point that many psychologists feel that incest should be defined to include any adult that has authority or power over a child or in whom a child trusts. Although I named one source, I will post more sources later when I have the time to gather them again. As I said, my comment was based on reading several books and papers on the subject, and as nearly every one mentioned this point, I thought to bring it up as a discussion point. I felt it was an interesting way to look at it, because I had wondered--what defines incest? If you take the definition of the dictionary, where it is only incest if it is sexual relations between persons so closely related, then that would rule out step-parents and step-siblings. Yet people who are sexually assalted by step-relations feel just as "defiled", and who would define their experience as incestuous just as much as those which involved actual blood relations. Since this is the case, what makes those situations incestuous? Wouldn't it be the fact that those persons stood in the place of their parents or siblings, and therefore had the power or authority over them? So I guess they have reasoned that it is more the abuse of the trust, power and authority that makes these relations so damaging rather than the actual blood relationship. How would a young child know that it is physically wrong for blood relations to have sex? They don't know all the biological and genetic consequenses that originally created the laws of incest. They just know it feels wrong because these are the people they love and trust and who have the authority over them. So when you look at it that way, I do think that incest has a broader definition than what our dictionaries give us today. But I am sorry that this caused you to take issue. I didn't mean to make anyone feel bad by posting this. Ciao.(reply to this comment)

From Joe H Thursday, June 03, 2004, 09:42 (Agree/Disagree?) Words mean what they mean because of general usage. English speaking people use "incest" to refer to sexual relations between blood relations. All these other types of sexual abuse that these think-outside-the-box intellectuals want to include under "incest" are already labeled as child abuse. You can't just go changing what a word means because you think the perspective is the same. That's like me saying, "Well a star is a planet, because from my perspective when I look up at the sky, they're the same." Also, the new definition seems to exclude incest between two siblings of a similar age. Have these free-thinking researchers coined a new word for this phenonemon? I imagine this discussion will probably be wasted on you people, so I'll be off to my etymology discussion group. Toodle-oo!(reply to this comment)

From moon beam Thursday, June 03, 2004, 11:11 (Agree/Disagree?) Like you said " words (evolve/change/become more up to date-we don't use shakespear anymore. Gay used to mean happy) mean what they mean because of general usage.." I don't think that incest between siblings is excluded from this definition as it can be just as detrimental, older siblings usually take on a sub-parenting role.(Certainly in communal situations) (reply to this comment)

From Wolf Friday, June 04, 2004, 22:20 (Agree/Disagree?) Gay still means happy, want still means lack, etc. The newer definitions of these words haven’t replaced the old ones.(reply to this comment)

From Ne Oublie Saturday, June 05, 2004, 00:41 (Agree/Disagree?) True, but you'll hardly find a self-respecting person under the age of 80 referring to themself as 'gay' when they're happy - because they know they're almost guaranteed to be misunderstood. But in regards to incest, I agree with Joe that it's a word with a specific definition, there are plenty of words which already define the problems these people want to address, I don't see why they need to try and pervert the meaning of incest just so they can use that lable.(reply to this comment)

From Saturday, June 05, 2004, 08:02 (Agree/Disagree?) That's funny, "pervert the meaning of incest." Like it could get worse.(reply to this comment)

From Ne Oublie Sunday, June 06, 2004, 08:37 (Agree/Disagree?) Vicky already explained the relevant definition of 'pervert'. Incest is one of the many sexual perversions which society has taken legal action against. As sick as incest is, I would not define it as 'the worst' - although for someone who has suffered it (or any other abuse) I don't think a gradient rating would provide much solace. But I don't think that's good enough cause for inaccurate use of terminology.(reply to this comment)

From Vicky Saturday, June 05, 2004, 13:42 (Agree/Disagree?) Actually, 'pervert' in this context means to corrupt, misuse or distort. But I get what you're saying!(reply to this comment)

From Wolf Saturday, June 05, 2004, 03:26 (Agree/Disagree?) "you'll hardly find a self-respecting person under the age of 80 referring to themself as 'gay' when they're happy" Unless they're gay in more ways than one, e.g.: "I'm so gay 'cause I'm gay". BTW, dude, it's "themselves" and "label".(reply to this comment)

From Wolf Saturday, June 05, 2004, 03:26 (Agree/Disagree?) "you'll hardly find a self-respecting person under the age of 80 referring to themself as 'gay' when they're happy" Unless they are gay in more ways than one: "I'm so gay 'cause I'm gay". BTW, dude, it's "themselves" and "label".(reply to this comment)

From Vicky Thursday, June 03, 2004, 11:35 (Agree/Disagree?) You seem to be coming at this discussion from the viewpoint that incest is a word that means 'the worst type of sexual abuse' - This is the only way your argument makes sense. I personally agree with Joe that incest should remain defined as sexual acts with a person who is too closely related to marry,as I don't see the point of changing the word's definition. Anyway, although I see how sexual abuse from one's primary carers could be considered more damaging, in view of the trust issues and all that, I feel that saying that abuse from primary carers is more damaging is a very simplistic way of looking at the issue - Surely this differs from case to case, depending on how frequently it happened and for what period of time, etc. (reply to this comment)

From moon beam Thursday, June 03, 2004, 12:32 (Agree/Disagree?) I see what both you and Joe are saying. I guess I do feel it is the most evil of sexual abuse's.Though one can be abused as an adult, it is more unlikely if you experienced and were set boundries as a child. I guess when the term was coined, it was much more common and expected that you didn't have step-families. "Sexual acts with a person who is too closely related to marry.." as a definition dosen't mean incest either sometimes, as you can't marry your step-child if you were married to her mom, even though you may never have met whilst you were married to her mom, or you couldn't marry your step-brother (who is not blood) if both your parents got married. I feel if you can have that discrepency than you can allow for Banshee's. Any family law experts in the house?(reply to this comment)

From Kirschy Friday, June 04, 2004, 05:27 (Agree/Disagree?) Woody Allen is in a sexual relationship with his ex-wife's adopted daughter who he raised. Though repulsive, this is not technically illegal. Incest is illegal because of the high risk that disabled children may result from the union. The law was not originally made for emotional/psychological protection. (reply to this comment)

From Christy Saturday, June 05, 2004, 10:33 (Agree/Disagree?) Actually, Woody Allen was never married to the adoptive mother, Mia Farrow. They lived together for several years and had a few children together, so I guess you could say they had a common law marriage. Though not illegal, since she had reached the age of consent, his actions were still frowned upon by society. I've heard that sexual abuse is more common between step-parents and their children that it is with biological parents. Though it may not be defined as incest, if the child is a minor, it's still rape. Though, to the victim, incest may be a more embarrassing crime, I don't know that it is any less serious. (reply to this comment)

From Baxter Friday, June 04, 2004, 13:10 (Agree/Disagree?) He always looked the type. (reply to this comment)

From Anthony Friday, June 04, 2004, 14:33 (Agree/Disagree?) Christfuck, so now individuals can "look the type"? Wonder what fucking type I look and if I'm bound by the destiny of said look-type.(reply to this comment)

From Baxter Saturday, June 05, 2004, 12:33 (Agree/Disagree?) Jesus, it was an insensitive joke! You'd think there were enough popping up on this site that I might get one in sideways! Why do some people see hidden significance in everything! I dunno, what type do you look like? (reply to this comment)

From Vicky Friday, June 04, 2004, 05:30 (Agree/Disagree?) I think they have one or two children together as well.(reply to this comment)

From Banshee Thursday, June 03, 2004, 13:00 (Agree/Disagree?) I might have misunderstood your wording in this comment, Moon beam, but you said that "you can't marry your step-child if you were married to her mom", but actually, I think you can, can't you? Woody Allen did. And while most people would think "Ewww..." I understood that he was within his legal rights. Maybe this is why people want to broaden the definition. Because to define incest as only between people who are too closely related to marry, in many cases that would rule out step-parents. So here is a question for Joe and Vicky: My step-father was there since before I could remember, I was I guess 2 or something. He's the only father I've known. Although he legally married my mom, he didn't adopt me. I do not bear his name; I am now at an age that marrying him would not raise too many eyebrows age-wise; I could technically marry him. But from around age 10 to 14 he abused me sexually in many different ways. Am I a victim of incest? I am just asking this for the point of the discussion, and to hear your views on it, because by the dictionary definition I did not experience incest. Yet it sure as hell feels like I did. I am not saying that I am now adhering to the "new"--and as Joe put it, free-thinking--definition of incest. I just put these views from different professionals out there as an interesting discussion topic. But in many ways I do think these people have a relevant point about the more psychological side of incest being examined rather than only the blood relation aspect.(reply to this comment)

From moon beam Friday, June 04, 2004, 04:42 (Agree/Disagree?) Yep, it was a bit of a mouthfull, you didn't misunderstand though. I think they did get married, but like you said "Ewww"! (Trying now to forget a nasty flashback of a Jerry Springer show-"I'm marrying your mom who is my daughter from my son who married an alien who is your dad-GET OVER IT!")(reply to this comment)

From Vicky Thursday, June 03, 2004, 13:23 (Agree/Disagree?) Banshee, I sincerely hope that you haven't taken offense to the comments I have made on this issue - I am only trying to play Devil's advocate as to why I feel that it would be detrimental to play around too much with the actual (and legal) definition of the word. As far as I am concerned, yes, what you experienced was in every sense tantamount to incest, as far as the ramifications are concerned. I can understand that for you it would have been emotionally and psychologically comparable to how it would have felt if he were your biological father, so I am not denying the fact that you have every right to look at it as incest if that's what you want to do. I guess I just don't really understand what good it would do to change the label? I mean, all sexual abuse is against the law, right? Is the law more lenient toward people who have abused a child who is not related to them? If so I can see why it would be justifiable to change the definition so that those step-parents/step-siblings/etc who do abuse can be brought to justice to a greater degree, to reflect the severity of the crime in relation to the trust issues, etc. Again, please accept my apologies if you have felt that I have been insensitive to your perspective on the issue. (reply to this comment)

From Banshee Thursday, June 03, 2004, 13:33 (Agree/Disagree?) Oh, no, absolutely not, I haven't taken offense at all. Again, I just want to make it clear that I am not the one trying to change the definition of incest, nor even an advocate of it. I brought it up for the purpose of interesting discussion--which it has been. I like to talk new ideas and thoughts out with people, and even if I bring up a point that sounds like I am advocating, I have often myself not yet fully formulated my opinion, because I like to hear it discussed by differing view points first. It was only in my reading on the subject of incest that I continued to come across this "new" definition of it, and when I started looking it up on the internet, it seemed to me that more and more psychologists and professionals are adopting a more broad definition of incest, and I posted these thoughts and opinions to hear other's views on it. I do think they have some good points, but so do you and Joe. I brought up my story not to bait you (sorry if I came across defensive), but more to discuss the sometimes problematic "black and white" definition of incest. Thanks for discussing all this with me, it has been very interesting. (reply to this comment)

From Vicky Thursday, June 03, 2004, 12:57 (Agree/Disagree?) Are you sure that that is how the law stands, (that a step-brother cannot marry a step-sister)? I am only asking cause I don't know anything about the legal standing on that... I think that if that is the case it would only be so if the step-parent has adopted his/her step-children, as otherwise he/she would not legally be considered a 'parent', at least that's the way it is here in the UK. I know of step-sibling relationships in this country, but whether they got married or not I can't remember. As for the 'incest' definition, if a brother or sister had sex while adults because they were in love, would this then not be incest, as they are not being abused? It would be illegal and probably a dysfunctional relationship, but not abuse. In that case it would be incest only because the law does not allow sex between close relatives and not for any other reason, so would we need a new word for this type of incest then? Also, the law does not allow polygamy but a man can still live with as many women as he likes, in different households, as long as they are not married, so just because step-sibling's or step-parents/children's marriages are illegal, does not make sex between them incest, as far as I am aware. It would be nice to get some info from someone who knows exactly how the law deals with situations such as these, i really don't know so I am just speaking from the top of my head.(reply to this comment)

From Joe H Thursday, June 03, 2004, 13:07 (Agree/Disagree?) The situation you describe with the brother and sister who are adults is precisely the problem that arises when idiots fail to realize that because incest is SOMETIMES child abuse, it is not ALWAYS child abuse, and simultaneously expand and restrict the definition. What I don't understand is why all these people are so desperate to be labeled as incest survivors! I think if I had been sexually abused by one of my parents, I would tell all the people who had been abused by their teachers or neighbours to go start their own organization, thank you very much, ISA is for incest survivors!(reply to this comment)

From Banshee Thursday, June 03, 2004, 13:25 (Agree/Disagree?) I agree with you on this, it's a good point. Most people do associate incest with child abuse, but like you said, it isn't always. But if you set the incest aside, I do think that there are two distinctions of sexual child abuse: that which a child suffers from a stranger or comparative stranger, and that which is a child suffers from a trusted caregiver or authority figure. I believe the latter is more psychologically damaging, and in some ways related to incestuous sexual abuse by similar mental and emotional damaging effects. Maybe they should just come up with a new word altogether. :) (reply to this comment)

From Vicky Thursday, June 03, 2004, 13:36 (Agree/Disagree?) Incest aside, yes I would tend to agree with you on the distinctions you have mentioned - It is clear that prolonged abuse by someone who a child trusts implicitly and probably loves dearly would most likely be far more damaging; on the other hand, most instances of abuse by strangers or comparative strangers are infrequent or even one-time cases, aren't they? I guess it depends on whether you count family friends or professionals such as teachers/headmasters/etc as comparative strangers, as these would obviously have more opportunity for carrying out the abuse, so it may become long-term.(reply to this comment)

From Banshee Thursday, June 03, 2004, 13:06 (Agree/Disagree?) The laws are all over the place on this whole topic of incest, and it varies not only from country to country, but here in the US, from state to state. There are several organizations trying to change these problems with the laws, as many are so outdated. Some states have already changed the laws, and more are in the process of. In reading about all this online, it seemed that the organizations trying to change the laws (tightening them, by the way) are tied in with broadening the definition of incest as well. (reply to this comment)

From Vicky Thursday, June 03, 2004, 12:58 (Agree/Disagree?) By step-parents/step children I of course mean step-children who are adults.(reply to this comment)

From Not-so-humble opinion Thursday, June 03, 2004, 10:29 (Agree/Disagree?) Step-parents or adoptive parents is incest too.(reply to this comment)

From Actually Wednesday, June 02, 2004, 16:03 (Agree/Disagree?) I don't think incest was as rare as you may believe. I heard about it from a few girls. I think the most common type of incest, though, was brother-sister incest. I experienced this first-hand. When I was younger (7/8 years old) my older brother began sexually abusing me. Here's the crazy part: when my dad found out, he gave us both a lecture. Said something about how incest was bad. Plus he made it sound as if I was a willing participant (I wasn't but he ddn't ask, I'm not sure he cared). A lecture was my brother's entire punishment. Anyway, you should believe it. It did happen.(reply to this comment)

From cyborcosmic Friday, June 04, 2004, 04:19 (Agree/Disagree?) Unfortunately, incest and child sex was common place. Even amongst the younger children. From my memories of staying in close quarters (remember the tripple bunk-beds) I remember 'fooling around' with several children, including girls -once even while my younger brother was in the room! I was about 5/6 at the time. When I was 7/8 I tried it with my brother, I don't know what pushed me to do it, it was encouraged to explore each other's sexuallity and I was curious. No one told me that doing it with your sibling is actually incestuous. Actually, my mom and stepdad knew about it and did/said nothing, their reaction was more along these lines: 'kids, ha!' My step-dad sexually abused my sister during her 8th-12th year. That included the exchange of oral sex, but not rape, although their was penetration. My mothers reaction was: 'but touching a child sweetly is not harmful!' The bottom line is : Parents and other forms of authority are there to guide , mentor and support! Nothing more!!! It is not their job to touch you! Though that is the argument of people in the family (that they were showing love and care) But that is not their job!! I believe strongly that any authority figure that abuses a child's trust has committed a crime, you can call it what you want, but its still a horrible violation. My sister and many here are very confused about sex as a result of there being NO GUIDELINES or TABBOOs. I believe that there were many perverts who were attracted to this FREE SEX environment and who fed off us children, while everything was justified in the name of GOD. (reply to this comment)

From Actually Friday, June 04, 2004, 15:41 (Agree/Disagree?) WEll, in my situation, I had fooled around with a couple of boys my own age before the incident with my brother. There was no penetration... It probably would have been a lot worse (if that were possible) if there was penetration. But anyway, you have no idea how that messed up my whole sexual life... Even now, after sex, I feel disgusted and dirty. Horrible feelings. No one in my family knows about it either.(reply to this comment)

From Actually Friday, June 04, 2004, 15:40 (Agree/Disagree?) WEll, in my situation, I had fooled around with a couple of boys my own age before the incident with my brother. There was no penetration... It probably would have been a lot worse (if that were possible) if there was penetration. But anyway, you have no idea how that messed up my whole sexual life... Even now, after sex, I feel disgusted and dirty. Horrible feelings. No one in my family knows about it either.(reply to this comment)

From I remember Friday, June 04, 2004, 15:50 (Agree/Disagree?) When the GOE tapes came out, our parents had us listen to them at night. There were 3 beds and 4 kids, and we took turns sharing one of the beds. One tape listening night, I was stuck with the bed-share, along with my step-brother, who wanted vaseline for his chapped lips and tissue for his nose. The parents made totally unnecessary and inappropriate sexually suggestive remarks directed toward my stepbrother and me and it was mortifying to me. Those Garden of Eden tapes, as with everything that came from Berg, always came back around to sex whenever they could.(reply to this comment)

From Baxter Friday, June 04, 2004, 13:00 (Agree/Disagree?) Damn right! (reply to this comment)

From Joe H Friday, June 04, 2004, 10:20 (Agree/Disagree?) "but not rape, although there was penetration" ??? This doesn't make much sense to me, but let me just say that the law would define this as rape (sometimes called statutory rape), even if you don't. (reply to this comment)

From cyborcosmic Tuesday, June 08, 2004, 05:44 (Agree/Disagree?) 'penetration but not with rape' means that there was touching on the inside.(reply to this comment)

From Banshee Tuesday, June 08, 2004, 09:05 (Agree/Disagree?) This statement is an oxymoron because the legal definition of rape is penetration of any kind whether it be with a finger, an object, or with the genitals. The definition of rape also includes oral sex, or penetration by the man's genitals into the mouth. Penetration is penetration. The only way "penetration but not with rape" would be possible, is if the penetration was consensual. (reply to this comment)

From Joe H Tuesday, June 08, 2004, 10:11 (Agree/Disagree?) "is if the penetration was consensual" By legal definition, penetration cannot be consensual if it involves a minor. This is because a minor is not capable of consenting.(reply to this comment)

From Banshee Tuesday, June 08, 2004, 12:38 (Agree/Disagree?) Right, you're absolutely right. That's why I said it was an oxymoron. I was just making the point that to say penetration without rape that would be the only way. But because the situation was with a minor, then, obviously it was not consensual, as you said. (reply to this comment)

From It did go on Wednesday, June 02, 2004, 15:08 (Agree/Disagree?) Yes it is true and did happen. I don't know if this is the same person but I do know a teen who's Mom was having sexual relations with him well into his teenage yrs. She was very beautiful and young looking for her age and he was very tall and looked older then his. I'm not sure how it all started but it did go on for yrs. I knew both these people personally. There were lots of things that went on that were hushed and it was left up to "according to your faith" "and as long as it was done in. ugghh and then they wonder why so many of their kids are mentally confused sexually. (from one who hates anonymous post but needs to due to not wanting to expose the person as it is very personable info.)(reply to this comment)

From Wednesday, June 02, 2004, 13:50 (Agree/Disagree?) My husband's mother used to do stuff to him too...sexually. Believe it.(reply to this comment)

From Vicky Wednesday, June 02, 2004, 13:50 (Agree/Disagree?) I have heard several accounts of incestuous abuse in TF although I think it was much less common with women/sons than men/daughters and not nearly as common as non-incestuous acts, as far as I can tell. While it is difficult to comprehend that parents could commit such awful acts with their own children, it certainly did happen.(reply to this comment)

From a thought Wednesday, June 02, 2004, 10:17 (Agree/Disagree?) EyesWideShut, there was a lot of good stuff in that comment. As I read how one person is saying the men seem to have suffered less, and then your story about the boy with the FFer mother, I was thinking about the range of responses of the FGs to the sick teachings of Berg. Even though The Family's leadership is responsible for creating the monster, despite their claim that it was "a few individuals" who got the wrong idea, between them and us there came a variety of FGs who latched on to different aspects more or less enthusiastically. For example, I saw some kids my age whose parents seemed to have a little restraint with applying "One Wife," and did prefer their kids to other peoples'. Boy, did I envy those kids. That was a good instict on their parents' part, I think, although not as good an instict as running like hell from that environment and taking the kids with them. It was also true that within TF's closed world, variations like that made it so the supposed equality was skewed and the communalism couldn't work. Not a terribly good situation if failure to adhere to a uniform standard means injustice, but uniform adherence to that particular standard would have meant uniform misery. About the men's suffering in TF, I am not a man so am not the most qualified to say, but I don't think they had it easy at all, or even "easier" than the women (although they had it different in *some* respects). It can just seem like that when much of the talking things out or the articles analyzing the TF experience is done by females. I think, as an observer, that the men had a particular brand of hell, and I think one day we will hear more when the introspectively inclined guys start airing their thoughts. I for one wonder what it was like from their point of view and I suspect that they qualify for just as much empathy as us females.(reply to this comment)

From I agree Wednesday, June 02, 2004, 12:48 (Agree/Disagree?) My brothers had to deal with guilt at not being able to do the *manly* thing and protect me from the creeps. As much as they know now that there was next to bugger all they could have done. Also their relationships with woman were affected by their relationship with mom, bringing up issues of being unable to be emotionally close and dis-trustful of woman. Even things like chatting up girls was difficult and because they were so aware of the effect it can have on a woman if they were to be perceived as being too forward or pushy, they sometimes would be in the other extreme of not appearing confident enough-and girls are attracted to guys with confidence . Having a bad role model as a father didn't help them feel comfortable with becoming a man.(reply to this comment)

from Benz Tuesday, June 01, 2004 - 18:11 (Agree/Disagree?) I think this whole article and comments depicts something I truly believe is true which is we (as a overall group of ex-fam SGA’s) seem to continually insist on selling ourselves and each other short to the point where we are practically writing each other & ourselves off. – The negative comments and opinions we seem to have of ourselves and each other are certainly nothing short of self-destructive. Firstly, I completely disagree with some of the remarks made to the effect that the author’s ex-fiance is either a “loser” or “mama’s boy”. There is nothing about us (as a group of common upbringing) which means we are inherently less intelligent, or inferior on any other level than anyone else. The fact that this guy has plucked up the courage to leave the cult, the fact even that he has held a 3 year relationship with someone he obviously cared for, should speak volumes in my opinion. When veterans returned from Vietnam, there was enormous misunderstanding of their behaviour, anger, nightmares, phobias, pains etc. – The only people they knew would understand for sure were each-other. – I hope we can understand and stop judging someone who obviously has earned the respect, love and trust of someone who is willing to come here and tell her story. What possible constructive use does anyone have in blowing up this guy’s inadequacies, purported “problems” or otherwise. We know the reasons why this guy would be angry, reasons why he would have problems with intimacy, etc. The fact that some other of us are either less prone to react angrily, or have come to terms with things more is not a reason to tear him down. – The people who are tearing this guy down are in my opinion actually portraying much more of the harsh, inhumane, ruthless attitudes which we all despise and recognise as typical of cult behaviour. Any “ordinary” “normal” kid who had been raised the same as us & this guy would probably react the same way and so who are we to judge as if we were better than he. Anyways, that’s my piece. (reply to this comment)

From Jules Tuesday, June 01, 2004, 19:02 (Agree/Disagree?) I totally agree with you. I for one can completely relate to this young man and his anger, hostility and withdrawal. I also agree that, knowing where he is coming from, his reactions are completely understandable. I was also surprised to see some of the comments posted. Remember, this is his ex (at the moment, perhaps things will work out) who wrote this. Something though that I have been trying to come to terms with and understand recently is that I tend to be very bratty. On one hand I am extremely defensive (perhaps even paranoid) if I think anyone sees me as being flawed or "different". On the other hand, I make excuses for my antisocial behaviour, my flakiness, my tantrums and my laziness because "oh, you don't know what I've experienced". That's crap and deep down I do know it. It's weird that on so many levels I am strong, independent and capable, and on some strange level I am still looking for someone to tell me what to do. If someone else makes the decision then it's not my responsibility. I want someone to take that role, but I test and test him or her to make sure they are someone I can really respect. It's very weird. It's like I'm looking for a new role model/parent/leader. I absolutely hate this in myself when I recognize it and yet I have people that I have put on a pedestal and I am devastated when I discover they are actually flawed. When it comes to sexual relationships I run at the first sign of discontent but I do know that's not taking responsibility either. I tell my partners going in that "This probably won't work. I have issues. Trust me, you don't want to know me. Let's just keep it fun and casual.” Sometimes it's almost like I am just waiting for things to go wrong so I can say, "Well, we knew it would come to this. Hey, don't be all hurt and mad. I told you going in what the deal was.” What you said about writing each other off is I think so true. I think I do this with myself as well. I wrote myself off sometime ago and I continue to feed my self-fulfilling prophecy. It freaking hard when there are so many things stacked against you, but there is no reason that I can't have what everyone else aspires to: peace, joy and love. I know it sounds lame and cliché, but I think most people really do aspire to those things. A friend of mine once told me "keep your voice strong and your spirit still". I think that is the core of true strength. We can make our voices heard about the things we are passionate about, but inside we are still, grounded and at peace. I hope this for myself one day. I agree with you that we all have much more strength than we realize. I guess growing up means embracing that strength and making choices on our own without looking for external reassurance and guidance. (reply to this comment)

From cyborcosmic Friday, June 04, 2004, 09:28 (Agree/Disagree?) Hi Jules, What you wrote caused me to think about all relationships on a deeper level. I see many similarities in our way of relating to people and I wonder if that is something unique to our under-bringing. (vs up-bringing!) I am also very afraid of judgemental attitudes. I am afraid of showing any weakness because of the fear of being judged by my faults. Of course, everyone has faults, but our severe experience of a childhood has caused a greater need for perfection in order to be accepted. I came to a new realization that this striving for our own perfection has caused us to be overly compromising with others. Being overly comprimising, I dropped all expectations of others. To illustrate this point, consider this: Our environment was very scant. There was a definite lack. Maybe because everyone felt so unprovided for, (none of our emotional or physical needs were met because we were constantly sacrificing our needs for others) we held on too tight to whatever we could get our hands on. I experienced this directly, having had so many siblings and having to share all. When I finally got something of my own, I held on to it. And I never expected to receive, even though I worked hard! Maybe I don't expect much from relationships because I was so used to people being so cold and stingy. When I needed help, I could not get it. I never trusted because my experience was that people will cheat me. When someone wanted to be my friend I looked for ulterior motives. So what do I expect from relationships? I expect nothing. Sexually speaking, I have been in many relationships where I was never the pursuer. I have always been pursued and that minimilizes the chance of being rejected. I have always rejected the chance of real commitment or responsibility because I knew things weren't ever going to work out. That was my expectation !! To summarize: I have very low expectations of people and very high expectations of myself. This shows in my relationships where I continue to criticise myself, blaming it on my personality when the relationship doesn't work out and not being expectant in the least. What do you think this means if you look at our childhood and the kind of adults we grew up to be? Who is to show us what real relationships are? (reply to this comment)

From Benz Wednesday, June 02, 2004, 21:20 (Agree/Disagree?) I’m not sure if this makes sense Jules, but my own perspective says that if our experiences in the family affect the way we view ourselves then “The Family” may be considered to have “won”. The same way I consider that the Indian Caste system has “won” if it succeeds in convincing an individual that they are an “untouchable” and another that they are “divine”. The treatment we received growing up has in most cases affected the way we feel about ourselves. A child who is taught to believe they should be treated a certain way comes to accept that idea of themselves and form an identity around it. – And it is only the smallest of things which give us away, like tolerance/ acceptance of things which most people would not consider acceptable and intolerance of things that majority of society accepts. At times not being sure of our boundaries toward others because proper boundaries were often breached in our childhoods, our vulnerability’s exploited rather than protected, means our own scars and thick skin now sometimes make us insensitive to people around us. As I now try to “move-on” I find that I often feel I have to often overcompensate in areas where I feel I have been taken advantage of or mistreated in the past. – So the feeling of being hurt and helpless is replaced with the emotion of anger, rage and revenge which I feel protects me from it happening again. This is something I am trying address now in finding a balance, realising that anger and rage although seem to empower, ultimately have the opposite affect when they tear you from those who would otherwise understand you and be your friends. I think the more I consider that the largest part of my life is still ahead of me, the less I look at my past as an impenetrable barrier, and more of a negotiable obstacle. I try to remind myself that I won’t let anything I experienced in TF, define who I am or am not. – If I accept there are things I cannot do because of The Family, then again they will have won. The most important thing I believe I have learned is the importance of finding someone you are willing to trust, trusting & allowing them to trust you in return even if it means leaving yourself open to the pain of having that trust broken. I believe eventually most of us will get over the fears we’ve developed due to the abusive relationships, people and environment of our past in TF and learn to build our own new cultures, relationships and environment based on the positives we can achieve rather than seemingly having to concentrate so much on fighting the negatives of our past. (reply to this comment)

From Wolf Tuesday, June 01, 2004, 20:48 (Agree/Disagree?) I might be wrong about this but it seems girls were generally scarred deeper than guys in TF. Most ex guys I know bitch about TF but don’t think their childhood experiences are holding them back from success in any facet of life. I wonder if that’s the root of many misunderstandings on this site. For example, you feel you have “so many things stacked against you”, but I feel the disadvantages related to my upbringing are more or less outweighed by the advantages (what doesn’t kill us makes us stronger). I suppose it should be obvious that females are more vulnerable to abuse, but I wonder if they’re also more vulnerable to self-depreciation? Maybe it’s all those years of humility training. In any case, the female ex's I know are outstanding individuals. I think we’re all better people because of the hardships we lived through.(reply to this comment)

From I dont' want to be named Wednesday, June 02, 2004, 13:19 (Agree/Disagree?) I can appreciate that as a male, the likelihood of being physically sexually abused was much lower (I personally was never abused in this way); nonetheless, the things that I was witness to have screwed me up pretty badly. I can't get over the fact that I subconsciously associate sex with deviance, something ugly or dirty. This has created relationship problems that you might be able to imagine. I can't have sex without feeling like shit afterwards. I'm often extremely irascible or angry after having sex, and often during sex I can't get off without behaving in an inconsiderate, aggressive or just plain nasty manner. This seriously freaks me out, and for the most part trying to avoid this leaves both parties unsatisfied. I don't want to behave like this, so I've started to avoid it altogether. This make it impossible to get anywhere with a relationship, and women usually just get frustrated with me when they realise I'm reluctant to have sex. They think it's something to do with them; needless to say, I haven't had much success keeping down a relationship. My life and character is already abnormally masochistic- I tend to be sporadically self-destrucive when I'm intoxicated, and my friends get pretty freaked out sometimes with my behaviour. I've placed myself in violent and dangerous positions a couple of times; friends have commented that they thought I wasn't afraid of seriously hurting myself; I've come to think it's more about me just wanting to hurt myself. But getting beaten up because you take on an insurmountable opponent isn't as serious as allowing a relationship that you value to go south because you show sado-masochist traits in relation to your sex-life.even if I could find a partner who doesn't mind my destructive streak, how the fuck am I supposed to get past that horrible feeling I'm left with after sex? I can't talk to other men about this, they wouldn't get it; they'd think I was fucking abnormal, and WTF I am! Conselling is about the best way to waste money and time I've ever experienced. I guess you can understand why I'm posting anonymously. I don't want to demean those whose abuse exceeded my own, but I'm stuck with the feeling that I'm either gonna hurt someone else, myself, or be alone for the rest of my life. If you met me you probably wouldn't guess I had this problem, and I've never really talked about this to anyone. (reply to this comment)

From Vicky Wednesday, June 02, 2004, 14:03 (Agree/Disagree?) If you don't mind me asking, why do you feel that counselling is such a waste of money and time? Is it something that you've learned from experience? I'm just thinking that anything that might help you overcome these difficulties surely can't be waste, and if it was my life I would want to at least give it a try. (reply to this comment)

From I still want to remain anonymous Wednesday, June 02, 2004, 15:14 (Agree/Disagree?) My former employers paid for me to attend counselling when they realised I had disfunctional problems; the counsellor just sat there like a fucking dildo- it didn't matter what I told the dozy bitch! I went through abuse, trauma, etc. Thank fuck I wasn't paying for it! (reply to this comment)

From Vicky Thursday, June 03, 2004, 01:42 (Agree/Disagree?) Perhaps you could do a bit of research and try to find a type of therapy that seems right to you - There are different approaches and just because one didn't work doesn't mean that you can't find something that does. I think that you deserve to be happy and feel whole within yourself! (reply to this comment)

From itsxena2u Wednesday, June 02, 2004, 16:38 (Agree/Disagree?) Well it just goes to show that your former employers must've thought you were a pretty valuable asset to the company to be spending a considerable amount of money on a counsellor for you. Otherwise, it would have been easier just to let you go and hire someone else. A lot of companies don't like dealing with employees with a lot of baggage and who can't keep their job and private lives separate, thus making it difficult to focus on the work that needs to be done. Just an observation. (reply to this comment)

From Joe H Wednesday, June 02, 2004, 16:43 (Agree/Disagree?) I also think it's interesting that an employer would pay for counseling (maybe it was included in the health plan?). However, it sounds like the counselor he described was pretty ineffectual, so maybe the problem was that they didn't spend "a considerable amount of money." This is another reason I have never made it into therapy -- the Get Joe Into Therapy fund hasn't raised enough money to send me to a half-way decent therapist. Thanks a lot, Joe-haters!(reply to this comment)

From I'll clarify for you then! Saturday, June 05, 2004, 12:42 (Agree/Disagree?) Basically, it was in their interest to help me sort out my problems, or at least be seen to. The original reason for sending me to counselling was for issues that had arisen whilst being employed in a far corner where shit went wrong without anybody noticing. The counsellors were in their employe. As I understand it, counsellors are just for people who want someone to listen, they're not therapists. (reply to this comment)

From Vicky Saturday, June 05, 2004, 12:54 (Agree/Disagree?) Have you considered things like meditation, or perhaps a martial art? I know it sounds a bit stupid but meditation has been proved to alleviate a variety of psychological difficulties (and, no, it doesn't have to have anything to do with religion or hippy stuff...), helping to achieve a greater sense of grounding, etc, etc. I've been told that martial arts can help to channel anger and destructive energy, and the self-discipline learned also helps in controlling violent behaviour. (reply to this comment)

From Bloody hell! Saturday, June 05, 2004, 14:58 (Agree/Disagree?) The point I was trying to make was, very simply, that just because it was uncommon for boys to be raped or outright abused by adults in a physical manner does not mean that the damage was not visible or detrimental. I'm not sure what I can do about it (thanks for the ideas) and I don't mean to make a fuss, but I just can't stand to hear people assume that bacause I'm not female that it had no effect on me. I doubt hitting bricks in a disciplined environment will make any difference from doing it under any other context. Maybe meditation might work. thanks. (reply to this comment)

From correction! Saturday, June 05, 2004, 15:01 (Agree/Disagree?) By physical abuse, I meant to imply sexual molestation; not physical abuse or violence. Of that I did have more than my fair share.(reply to this comment)

From Vicky Saturday, June 05, 2004, 16:04 (Agree/Disagree?) I think you've made a very important point. It annoys me too, when people make assumptions based on gender alone. I think though, that the person who mentioned it above - If it's the comment about males not being as deeply affected by abuse as females that you're referring to - actually did experience abuse while in TF (Please correct me if I'm wrong, Wolf, as I may be recalling incorrectly, but I think I read a comment form you way back when, where you outlined some experiences you had..?), so he is speaking from his own perspective. I am sure that people suffer different effects according to the severity of the incidents, age at the time, personality traits, and a host of factors. As far as my suggestions for 'help,' sorry if my tone seemed patronising - I do tend to become a bit OTT sometimes...(reply to this comment)

From Wolf Saturday, June 05, 2004, 22:17 (Agree/Disagree?) Yes, I was abused sexually, physically and mentally, though not as badly as many of the people who have posted their stories here, and I do feel that as a male it didn’t affect me as profoundly as it did some of the females I know. I know other men who were abused as well, but it doesn’t seem to be a major issue in their lives at present. I have several sisters and for a long time I used to dismiss their claims because I related everything to myself, I figured if I could get through that stuff without any permanent effects, so could they. The posts on this site have actually helped me mature in this sense, but I still tend to think that guys who blame their character faults on what they’ve gone through are kind of wimpy. Maybe I’m still immature in some ways.(reply to this comment)

From nobody Sunday, June 06, 2004, 11:51 (Agree/Disagree?) Yes those things happened but we are not to blame and we won’t let it ruin our lives. We are better than that. Just because I had the childhood I did does not make me damaged goods and will prove anyone wrong who disagrees with me. (reply to this comment)

From The director Wednesday, June 02, 2004, 17:33 (Agree/Disagree?) Dear Joe, We are doing what we can, but unfortunatly at the present moment, the price of your therapy is being raised by every comment you post. Sincerely, Ty Erdovjo Director of the GJIT fund (reply to this comment)

From Joe H Wednesday, June 02, 2004, 13:29 (Agree/Disagree?) At the risk of sounding completely insensitive, I would suggest that you find girls who are into S&M. That, and a good therapist. (reply to this comment)

From Therapy sucks!!! Wednesday, June 02, 2004, 13:42 (Agree/Disagree?) It does!(reply to this comment)

from neez Tuesday, June 01, 2004 - 15:42 (Agree/Disagree?) Yeah I'd say sex before marriage is the least of your problems with this guy. & don't bother trying to understand ppl that think of wedding rings as pure evil. I mean what sorta fucked up hippy shit is that!? Are you for real? I don't know a single girl that wouldn't care if she got a ring on her wedding day. Run away & don't look back. (reply to this comment)

from 2 cents Tuesday, June 01, 2004 - 14:09 (Agree/Disagree?) It's sweet how you have adopted his lingo like "battles" "convicted" and "condemnation." (reply to this comment)

From 2 cents for that? Wednesday, June 02, 2004, 01:37 (Agree/Disagree?) There are plenty of words, thoughts & idioms which are basically common among all the various Christian circles, one of which Berg & Co. came from.Naturally TF used them, b u t those above & others are easily understood by mainstream Christian groups & used, so you can't conclude necessarily that she's adopted TF-only-lingo, "becoming one" with him in a bad sense.(reply to this comment)

From exister Tuesday, June 01, 2004, 14:40 (Agree/Disagree?) You mean creepy? There should be a support site for people at serious risk of joining the cult like this poor girl. newbabes.org maybe?(reply to this comment)

from exister Tuesday, June 01, 2004 - 09:58 (Agree/Disagree?) First, ditch this loser. Second, why do either of you care what his cultie parents think? Finally, no marriage before sex. (reply to this comment)

From Joe H Tuesday, June 01, 2004, 10:53 (Agree/Disagree?) Damn straight, exister! Lynne, your ex is a momma's boy who needs professional help. Aren't there any nice men at your church or youth group who also want to wait until marriage to have sex? I respect your personal attitudes toward sex, though I certainly don't share them, and you're never going to make it work with a man who doesn't. On a lighter note, here's what I say when I meet a women who tells me she's waiting till marriage to have sex: "Well, when you get married, give me a call." (Many thanks to my brother Chris for that one.)(reply to this comment)

from venus_fly_trap Tuesday, June 01, 2004 - 09:28 (Agree/Disagree?) i would say first he is still in the group on some level. if you marry him you will most likely also be "in" the group. yes we all have anger isssues. i would say if you love him and want to make it work you have years and years ahead of you in regards to the therapy. i would never date an ex memeber personally. understand also that our upbringing taught us that it was ok to have sex outside of marriage. we watched our parents having sex with other married people and have brothers and sisters to prove it. this "law of love" is still very much in full force. although it does seem his parents ties are loose which means they may not be required to live by "the law of love" which states all things done in love are not a sin. but very careful...we were born into a toxic environment and it's not something that can be easily removed... (reply to this comment)

from Wolf Tuesday, June 01, 2004 - 09:16 (Agree/Disagree?) I don’t even consider someone a girlfriend until she sleeps with me on a pretty regular basis … theoretically I suppose I’d be willing to hold out without sex for somebody I really love, but in practice I wouldn’t, how on earth would I be able to tell if the girl just wants to wait or dislikes sex? There are two qualities I avoid like the plague: incessant bitching and frigidity. I’m not trying to say you should do something you’re not up to, I’m just saying I think I know where the anger’s coming from, and I think the only solution is finding a guy who’s OK with a relationship minus the sex (good luck). (reply to this comment)

from Nick Tuesday, June 01, 2004 - 08:51 (Agree/Disagree?) Sounds a little like this guy and his parents are still somewhat involved with the group. Either that or they have just left not to long ago and have not fully integrated into society yet. I do have to say though that the whole no sex before marriage thing does not work these days. Not for any self respecting man anyway. The whole idea is out dated and old fashioned and not even expected in most secular churches. It’s what I like to view as a lesser sin. Something that is in the bible but no one really follows. Like eating pork, sassing back to your parents, shaving your beard or excelling yourself from the community for 7 days when you are on your period. (reply to this comment)

From Sharon Tuesday, June 01, 2004, 09:55 (Agree/Disagree?) I agree that it is rare to find someone who won’t have sex before marriage, but it is not impossible. I also chose not to have sex with my boyfriend (now husband) partly for religious reasons and partly because I was too traumatized from past relationships and needed some time to heal. Although we ended up having sex a couple times in three years, for the most part he was very respectful of my wishes and never got angry about it. I’m sure it was frustrating but when you really love someone there are more things than sex that matter. I don’t think it is a huge concern that one may not be sexually compatible after marriage because by the time you actually get married you love each other for so much more than how they are in bed. I would never leave my husband if it turned out that he sucked in bed—techniques can be developed. Sexual chemistry can be determined through other things than actual sex. (reply to this comment)

From mugthebug Wednesday, June 02, 2004, 13:55 (Agree/Disagree?) i was married for six years to someone who didn't know what he was doing in bed and let me tell you in a marrage sex does mater(reply to this comment)

From frmrjoyish Tuesday, June 01, 2004, 12:06 (Agree/Disagree?) I would never date someone and be serious enough to marry him without having sex. There's no way in hell I'm going through a life of bad sex. Sexual compatability is a huge concern and yes, there are ways to improve that, but ultimately there must be that spark which is intrinsic and cannot be learned with a few new tricks! (reply to this comment)

From banal_commentator Friday, June 04, 2004, 06:48 (Agree/Disagree?) No sex before marriage?......what a sick world we live in(reply to this comment)

from A Guy Tuesday, June 01, 2004 - 06:04 (Agree/Disagree?) I pride myself in a pretty good understanding of human nature and particularly the unique aspects of the majority of ex-family kids. However I really can't relate to the no sex B4 marriage scenario, I would be straight forward and say that a matter of years without sex is most likely the source of his anger problems...I'm more laid back than most but boy to the tensions build up, generating mood swings and general anxiety if I don't have sex in a week - never mind a month. Not sure whereabouts you live but it is rare in this day and age and the fact that he was willing to abide by your wishes is the biggest sign of his love. In this "post sex and the city" society from Chile to China sex starts in a matter of dates and is almost a precursor to a relationship. "love is the answer but while we're looking for the answer sex asks some pretty good questions" - Woody Allen - pretty much sums up the last 3 decades. I don't mean to be judging but if you want another perspective, no sex B4 marriage is an antiquated religious doctrine with no real moral merit. Imagine marrying someone you turn out not to be sexually compatible with? Imagine a sexual struggle from day 1 and answer me how long you think it will last. I don't believe I am over-sexed for my perspective but there is no denying that sex (and not just the act, its about satisfaction, feeling desired, intimacy and exploration) is the corner stone of a relationship and every issue will lead back to the bed, ask any counsellor. (reply to this comment)

From Pete Wednesday, June 02, 2004, 00:14 (Agree/Disagree?) Could you be a sex addict? I'm a guy, I haven't had sex in 4 years and I don't suffer from mood swings and general anxiety. These might be withdrawal symptoms.(reply to this comment)

From Joe H Wednesday, June 02, 2004, 10:40 (Agree/Disagree?) Pete, I know a lot of celibate people who don't lord it over the rest of us or throw words like "sex-addict" around. Do you realize the kind of mockery you're opening yourself up for by admitting that you haven't had sex for four years right after you insult someone? Lucky for you, I'm in a good mood, so I'm going to spare you the verbal thrashing you deserve in favor of a friendly piece of advice: not everyone has the same views about sex, and if you want us fun-loving hedonists to respect your views, well then you've got to respect ours. PS Sorry your girlfriend's such a frigid bitch!(reply to this comment)

From Pete Thursday, June 03, 2004, 20:42 (Agree/Disagree?) I don't mean to lord it over anybody. I've been where A Guy is - waiting for sex all week, being disappointed and frustrated when I didn't get it - and I got sick of that lifestyle. I only want to suggest that there are alternatives. If anyone wants to mock me for not having sex, I say they are immature. And as far as a girlfriend goes, I don't have one.(reply to this comment)

From banal_commentator Friday, June 04, 2004, 06:40 (Agree/Disagree?) 4 years? 4 years!!!!!!..........4 days and I'm rabid(reply to this comment)

From Nick Wednesday, June 02, 2004, 15:59 (Agree/Disagree?) Yeah I agree. Sorry, but it's just not normal for a adult man to go with ought sex for 4 years. The only guy I know that does that is a born again Christian and knows he shouldn't be fudge packing to just abstains. (reply to this comment)

From Vicky Thursday, June 03, 2004, 23:56 (Agree/Disagree?) There's a lot to be said for mental strength in situations such as the one discussed above - It is certainly possible to control one's impulses to the degree that one is not overcome by them. I really think you're being quite narrow-minded in thinking that just because most guys you know (Including your virile self i'm sure... ;-) need sex on a regular basis, it isn't possible for someone to manage just fine without it -- Abstaining does not make a man 'abnormal' at all, in my opinion. Again this is the kind of attitude that really annoys me, no acceptance of anything that you can't identify with completely -- When did it become necessary for us all to be exactly alike??? By the way, I have been missing our talks! How come you haven't been getting in touch??? -- Have we disagreed one time too many on this forum or have you just been busy lately? (reply to this comment)

From Nick Friday, June 04, 2004, 07:59 (Agree/Disagree?) You dont ever seem to be on line anymore. IM me when you get on next. Some days I may not see who is on line or not. :)(reply to this comment)

From lacy Wednesday, June 02, 2004, 16:58 (Agree/Disagree?) Personally, I don't think it's that abnormal or bad for a guy to go a few years without it. I mean, I know guys that are great, attractive men but just haven't had the right girl around at the right time. What are they supposed to do?-Go pay for a prostitute? Get drunk and do it with the first girl that will give it to them? Some guys are just better than that, they have more pride and integrity and would rather wait for someone they are really interested in. They don't need to up their self-esteem by bragging every five minutes about who they did and how many times they did it. In TF, I know it was difficult to get sex in every home you were in, guy or girl, just because you weren't always attracted to (excuse the expression) every tom, dick and harry around.(reply to this comment)

From Joe H Wednesday, June 02, 2004, 16:37 (Agree/Disagree?) Huh?(reply to this comment)

From Wolf Wednesday, June 02, 2004, 04:03 (Agree/Disagree?) 4 years?! Are you doing time? If sex is an addiction, food is too.(reply to this comment)

From Vicky Wednesday, June 02, 2004, 14:07 (Agree/Disagree?) Food can be an addiction, in my opinion.(reply to this comment)

From beg 2 differ Wednesday, June 02, 2004, 10:52 (Agree/Disagree?) Actually I do believe that there is a big difference between the need for food and the desire for sex. I don't believe the latter is less honorable than the first, but I do think you can live much longer without the latter than without the former. How would I know this? Uh, personal experience?(reply to this comment)

From Wolf Wednesday, June 02, 2004, 11:35 (Agree/Disagree?) Get real already, of course there’s a difference. This isn’t about need / desire, it’s about the definition of addiction, which can only be applied to sex if it’s “compulsive or obsessive” (Random House). “A Guy” said he gets moody if he doesn’t have sex in a week; I would hardly call that “compulsive or obsessive”. (reply to this comment)

From Wolf Wednesday, June 02, 2004, 11:54 (Agree/Disagree?) Let me rephrase that: if wanting sex at least once a week is obsessive / compulsive, so is wanting to eat at least twice a day. As far as I know almost every adult engages in some form of sex several times a month, even if it’s only during sleep with imaginary partners.(reply to this comment)

From beg 2 differ Wednesday, June 02, 2004, 11:42 (Agree/Disagree?) Geezuz, Wolf, how could I know that you realize this from your previous post!(reply to this comment)

From Vicky Tuesday, June 01, 2004, 10:01 (Agree/Disagree?) Sorry guys but wait a minute, how can you be so totally dismissive of Lynne's views on this issue? I really think you're out of order trying to tell her that just because most people don't feel that way she should go ahead and go against what she feels on this issue. Excuse me Nick but any self-respecting man should find himself a girl who feels generally the same way as he does about the fundamental issues within a relationships, not force himself on the one girl out of 100 who feels differently. I do not share Lynne's view on this issue, and I can totally understand your position being that we had the same upbringing and all, but I am still fully capable of understanding that for her this is a big deal. We all know that for many women sex is a psychological act through and through with a lot of implications on her state of mind, and it's my opinion that if Lynne allowed herself to be cajoled into going against her wishes on this issue it could have far-reaching negative effects on the marriage. I appreciate that most people (including myself) could not even imagine marrying without checking out the sexual chemistry, so I am not arguing that point, I just think that even though you didn't mean to be judgemental, that's exactly how you came across. Whether we consider it repression or not, there are some people, males too, in this day and age who do wait until they're married. Yes, I agree with you that it's probably unhealthy to expect men to forgo sex for any significant length of time (Like one day ; ), but at the same time I find it incredible that you, speaking of antiquated ideas, still automatically expect the woman to serve the man and be at his beck and call with no regard for her own opinion.(reply to this comment)

From exister Tuesday, June 01, 2004, 10:19 (Agree/Disagree?) I certainly don't expect any woman to be at my beck and call, and I abhor the idea that I could ever coerce or pressure a woman into sex. By the same token sex, like most commodities operates on a supply and demand basis, and if I have the demand I am sure I can find a willing supplier somewhere.(reply to this comment)

From Vicky Tuesday, June 01, 2004, 16:26 (Agree/Disagree?) Well now, Exister, I am sure that with that sharp mind of yours you aren't often in the position where you would have to resort to coercion... (reply to this comment)

from Banshee Tuesday, June 01, 2004 - 05:01 (Agree/Disagree?) (I wanted to send this to you in an email, since it contained some personal information, but my letter was returned to me last night, so I am posting it here minus some of the more personal information.) I’m sorry that you are going through such a difficult time right now. I can hardly imagine how much confusion you must be facing, which must make the pain worse. I also spent much time in my teens in Asia. I know that it must be overwhelming for you as an outsider looking in and trying to understand. --We don’t even understand and we grew up in it! But one thing for sure is, Asia had some of the most die-hard members of the group, and some of the most strict and stringent rules in the Family. And the Family has some pretty stringent rules. We had the least exposure to the outside world of any world area, and some of the harshest punishments. So if this is the background of your boyfriend, then he would have had a lot to deal with, I imagine. Having grown up in what most of the world, and most of us, consider a cult, we often feel very “different” and “strange”. We often feel it nearly impossible to fit in in situations or with people. Sometimes it seems that just by opening our mouths we declare our “unnormalness.” (Yes, I know that's not a real word.) If one of us--on top of that--grew up in a third-world or non-westernized country, it can compound those feelings. I’ve had them myself. But in spite of all this, you have to understand that you probably aren’t doing anything at all to aggravate his feelings of insecurity. These are feelings that go pretty deep for all of us, because, yes, you’re right, we spent our whole lives being told that we were “bad” or not good enough, or that we didn’t measure up to one thing or another. There were always new sins and problems that the leaders of the Family wanted us to overcome and fight. And everything you did or said was scrutinized and analyzed for signs of your sins or problems coming out. So a lot of us developed kind of a “persecution complex” of a sort, where we think everyone is looking at us critically. One thing I’ve noticed, and this is just my personal opinion, but in reading through different posts on the Movingon site, you start to notice some bragging, sensitivity, taking things personally, or even putting others down. It’s funny to me to see it on the site because we are really nice, kind people. Sometimes to the extreme. J But when we have opportunity to hide behind anonymity on a public site, it seems some of our deeper insecurities come out. There was a lot of damage done to our self-esteem in the Family. It would take a book to write all the ways we were beat down, or humiliated, or criticized. I think it made a lot of us very sensitive to anything we perceive as criticism or sometimes even disagreement. But all of that doesn’t mean that it isn’t something that should be, needs to be, and can be overcome. I am working on it, as are the ex-member friends I know. But it will take time, and it is a process, so it can be hard in the internship as we have lots of ups and downs. It sounds to me like you already have a lot of patience and understanding, but I know it must sometimes seem that healing is a long way off. Of course, I don’t know you or your boyfriend at all (at least, I don’t think so…), so I can only speak from my own experience, but sometimes for me what helps is if the person I am interacting with just acknowledges that they understand my feelings, or that they validate that I have them, even if they don’t understand why I have them. Sometimes I’m just looking for extra reassurance of love or acceptance. It’s like in the back of my head I’m secretly afraid that no one would ever really accept me if they knew all that happened to me, or how “damaged” I really am. So it’s like something that both me and my partner have to work together on; he has to give me extra assurance of love and acceptance, and I have to work to keep reminding myself that I over-react, and that he does love me and accept me as I am. I’m sure you do all this, I’m just speaking for myself and what I’ve had to face with my partner. As for the parents; I know this can be a touchy thing being that they were your future in-laws, and I’m sure that you were trying to build bonds with them, and have good relations, but I will tell you in all honesty that when I read your post, I just thought they sounded like they are very self-righteous! The first generation of the Family, those that joined the group, they can very often tend to be extremely self-righteous, self-important, and critical of the second generation—those born in the Family. They can be very stuck in their way of thinking, and that they only are right. It sounds from what you are describing that they are still members of the Family, but just what is called “Fellow Members”. They receive the “letters” from the leaders of the Family, believe the doctrines, etc, but they just don’t live communally. The Family has always been very strong in its belief that they are the only ones who are really serving God, out of the entire World. They believe they are the 144,000 of Revelation. They believe that they, and they only, are Jesus’ Bride. They believe that they are the only ones with the full truth of God. They believe that they are some of the few in the world who are really living as Jesus wants people to live. There are hundreds of “letters” written about this. This is why they are admonished to separate themselves from the “world”, so as not to become “contaminated” by it or those in it. As you can imagine, this attitude makes it very easy for them to look down on most everyone they meet in either condemnation, if you are Christian, or pity, if you are not Christian. This is why most members of the Family feel that they, and they only, are right on many issues. This might also be why your boyfriend has some feelings of guilt, as that is a lot to overcome, because they usually told all of us—over and over—that you were a “backslider” and “God’s vomit” if you ever left, that you were out of God’s will, and would never receive His blessings if you left. My mother-in-law is still in the group, and to be very frank with you, both my husband and I have had to just distance ourselves from her. She just doesn’t see eye-to-eye with us on anything, so we sort of “agree to disagree” and just go our ways. We keep in touch, visit once in a great while, but mostly just let her be as much as possible. My husband especially doesn't want to have to deal with her constant criticism and judgments on the decisions we have made and the choices we have made for us and our children. It's sad. The Family does have some very out-dated attitudes and doctrines about wives and mothers. The founder of the Family, Berg, was quite chauvinistic in many of his views on these things. He believed that the man was the head of the household, and the woman was to obey in all things no matter what, that they were mothers first before anything else and that the women who wanted jobs or careers instead of, or before, becoming mothers were sinful and selfish. He believed that the woman should yield sex to her husband whenever he wanted it, etc. He even talked a few times about slapping his first wife when she “disobeyed” him. I believe it was over a perm. He said no, she did it anyway, and so he slapped her. Needless to say, Berg’s views on women were passed down to his followers. The Family was also big on no birth control, trusting God for having as many children as He gave you, and however often, usually with no concern for the mother’s health or well-being. And of course, with the whole FFing thing, that’s an entire other subject that affected the Family’s outlook on women, as sex objects and as second-class citizens. The sexuality issues are a big one, for all of us. We were brought up in an over-sexualized environment where sex at an early age was not just the norm, but encouraged. There was minor with minor sex, adult with minor sex, and constant exposure as children to adult with adult sex. We were taught that sex was a gift of God (I still believe this is true), that as long as it is done in love—anything is alright. Sex outside of marriage in particular was encouraged, and there was no emphasis whatsoever on waiting for sex before you married. Members were encouraged to, often forced to, have sex with other members that they didn’t even care for, let alone have a relationship with. So although we were taught that sex was an expression of love, we were also taught that it was nothing important or sacred, that you could—and were, in fact, entitled to—have it whenever you wanted, especially the men. Jealousy was condemned as one of the most heinous sins you could have, and extra-marital affairs are not considered cheating, but just “freedom in love.” Most of the second generation disagree with these doctrines, and many have left because of them. In spite of this background and upbringing, as a woman I just wanted to say, that your feelings regarding sex should be respected regardless of whether they are his feelings or not. A person should be respected for where they stand on sex, and should only take that step when they are ready for it, not when their partner is ready for it. Unfortunately, this can be a foreign concept to some people raised in the Family. I have heard some ex-members say that this rude awakening can be difficult for some male members when they leave. It’s very sad to me to see so many skewered ideas and attitudes towards sex due to the over-sexualized atmosphere of the group. Lynne, I hope this helps a little bit, and I do offer up prayers for you and your love. I don’t know the details of your split, but if you do still love each other, I would certainly let him know that. Just that reassurance that you still love him, and that you want to work through these things might give him the strength to work through them with you. Just that you have come here to try to help yourself understand has taken a lot of courage. We’re a strange bunch, and understanding us can really take something sometimes! J You are obviously a very strong woman, both personally and in your beliefs, and I admire you for being willing to open up your heart to try to overcome all this for the sake of the one you love. (reply to this comment)

from Marc Tuesday, June 01, 2004 - 01:33 (Agree/Disagree?) Lynne, It sounds like your ex-boyfriend's parents are what the group calls "TSers" (I think they might have a newer name these days; I left over 8 years ago and don't keep up with all their lingo). This means they are no longer full members nor are they required to keep all of the rules (i.e. live with other members and in a "home"). It does, however, mean that they are on friendly terms with the group. In fact, they probably espouse many of their current beliefs and practices. They could also just be creatures of habit and used to telling people what to do, as many older members of that group do. You should understand that their version of Christianity is not mainstream. However, besides their "liberal" views on sexuality, they are for the most part fundamentalists Christians. Learn more about Bible-thumping, hell-raising, fear-of-God, holier-than-thou, fundamentalists Christians and you'll begin to understand his parents (Note: I don't know his parents personally but know the type you described). Trying to interact with your ex or his parents on Christian terms will not help you. They have the lexicon of Christians but not the mentality of any you will meet. As for the anger problem: I have heard of this problem. Many have lived a life in that group that would drive most normal people crazy. The fact that your ex was able to maintain a relationship with you says that he was doing a good job at dealing with it all. I would advise patience and understanding. I realise that it is difficult to empathize with someone with a background such as his, but you are losing a unique individual who has more to offer than you know. You see, one thing that is common among all of us former members (second generation) is implicit trust in those we love. I don't know your ex but I would dare say that, as he loves you, he trusts you fully and without reservation. That is not something you will find every day. As for the sexual differences: Yes. We were raised to view sex as an expression of love . . . but so do most _normal_ people. The difference is that we were encouraged to express it earlier than is probably healthy. Try to imagine experiencing all the emotion that comes with a sexual encounter (or relationship) but with the mind of a developing child/teen. Every one matures a different ages and not all countries of the world agree on when a child becomes and adult. However, one thing is certain (in my opinion) IF a child has not yet become an adult and plays as one there _will_ be mental scaring from the wounds not prepared to heal. It could very well be this scaring that you have encountered with your ex. You mentioned expecting things from him deemed normal in "your culture" (i.e. engagement ring, etc), well, now flip it over and try to view it from his perspective: He was raised expecting to have sex with the one he loves. Of course, I believe sex should never be lorded over someone and should only occur when both parties are comfortable and ready. However, since you probably gave him pressure to give you a ring (I am assuming this) since it is "expected in your culture," try to view his pressure to have sex in a different light. One final observation: You suggested he needs counselling in order to overcome his anger problems. Although this is the general assumption and trend in America, you should understand that it conjures up deep replusion from most of us. You see, we were forced into "counselling" most days of our lives and it wasn't the kind you would even wish on an enemy. This is why many don't seek help for their drug or alcohol problems; the sessions feel to them like the past they escaped from. Best of luck to you! (reply to this comment)

From Lynne Tuesday, June 01, 2004, 07:21 (Agree/Disagree?) Hi Marc, Thanks for the thoughts and points. I had not really thought about some of these things in this way and I think it is a good point. I don't feel I pressured him into the engagement ring thing, though I can see from the e-mail why you'd think that. It was more of a sore point with his parents since he wanted to buy me one and they thought it was worldly and unecessary and I was materialistic for even wanting one. I had just never really heard that argument before coming from my background, though I did make it clear that I was willing to marry him with or without the ring... love isn't bound by jewlery. I was a little surprised to hear you say that since he loves me he "trusts me fully and without reservation." It has actually been quite the opposite for us and this has led to many of the anger difficulties. He really doesn't trust anyone and we have worked hard to get to even the level of trust we have built. Many of the disagreements have come over the idea that he does not trust that I love him, want to be with him, he does not trust that I am not judging him nor that i am trying to understand his point of view. Trust has been a big difficulty and I know that his family does not trust "the world" and me coming from the world... well, I think it's one source of the difficulty. I though that maybe that was a symptom of being part of the group, but your comment tells me maybe it's otherwise. Any thoughts on this? (reply to this comment)

From Marc Tuesday, June 01, 2004, 12:21 (Agree/Disagree?) Lynne, I re-read my post to you and I admit that I wasn't clear about the trust factor. Again, I do not know your ex and I apologize if I assumed too much about your relationship. I suppose what I was attempting to convey was that in the group we were to put _all_ of our trust and emotion in the leadership. Interpersonal trust among our peers was discouraged if it was in any way more powerful than the forced trust. Thus, many of my good friends (male and female) secretly developed an unspoken "communication" or understanding of what we were all going through. We trusted our good friends implicitly. I will only speak for myself here (and sorry to the rest of you for assuming this), but I still trust my good friends from the group implicitly. No one on earth can better understand me than these good friends; not even my parents! Now, for my "new" friends--those who were never members--this trust I give them is on loan, must be repaid, and is by no means implicit. I would be far too naive to yield my trust so easily. I have dated many women in the years since I left and always found it _difficult_ to have the kind of trust in them I so badly wanted to yield to them. That is what I was trying to describe about your ex. I could very well be wrong here, but I believe he very badly wanted to put utter trust in you and yet couldn't with his wounded soul. On the comparison of pressure to have sex vs. the ring: Vicky was right to point out that they _don't_ compare. What I meant by that was we were brought up to believe that the act of sex was no-big-deal to the point were it _could_ be possible for a person with that mentality to believe there _was_ a comparison between the two. Does that make any sense? Again, I don't believe there is any healthy comparison, I was only attempting to shed a different light on it or put it into the twisted context of that group. Another thing on trust: Many have commented that they "trust no one" these days. Although I understand, I don't believe that a happy soul could go on in that environment. Trust is like credit, you give a little, use a little and it increases. If you abuse it you lose it. You build it up over time and with patience and responsibility. However, you will never give or get _any_ if you don't apply ;) One final point, Vicky and others still recommend therapy even though they understand our feelings over the matter. I have never had any, so I have nothing to stand on . . . but I still believe you won't find a willing soul in your ex and I think you should understand why. I am certainly biased and I still don't trust therapists.(reply to this comment)

From Vicky Wednesday, June 02, 2004, 00:53 (Agree/Disagree?) Marc, I can totally relate to how you feel about the friends you made while still in TF - I feel exactly the same way about some of my really good friends from 'way back then,' in fact one of my very best friends who I trust more than anyone else (besides my husband) is a guy who I haven't met in ten years. We hadn't spoken in years until a couple years back and yet, when we got back in touch it was like picking up right where we left off! I am really grateful to have that bond with someone who understands me and where I'm coming from on any given issue, although we are quite different and don't see eye to eye on everything... As for therapy, to be fair I should say that I have never had therapy either, so I'm not speaking from experience. However I make it a point to read as much as I can on issues relating to therapy and counselling, and as far as I can I apply the knowledge and understanding gained in my own life; I suppose at the moment I work as my own therapist in a lot of ways. I think it is maybe easier for women (And I know that that's a sexist generalisation but, oh well...) to envisage the whole therapy experience as something positive, we are after all more inclined to try to talk through our problems, being the more communicative sex. I don't believe that everyone who has left TF has to have therapy, it just seems that some people are better at working through the issues relating to the disengagement from the all-encompassing belief system that was TF, whereas others seem to flounder for years, struggling to overcome the effects of the past on their psychological patterns. (reply to this comment)

From Lynne Tuesday, June 01, 2004, 20:56 (Agree/Disagree?) Thanks for your comments Marc. You're right about the unwilling soul bit in regards to therapy. I don't think it's necessarily the end answer. I believe though that he hasn't come to terms with a lot of the things that have gone on in his past. I know I don't even know 90% of it, but from what I've been able to understand from the little he's said, he has good reason for a lot of his frustrations and feelings. I guess I've just always thought that sometimes you need to look back in order to move forward and we can't get to the root of the issues between us unless some of these things are dealt with. Maybe I'll just keep trying to point him toward sites like this.... how did you get your sense of self back? (reply to this comment)

From Marc Tuesday, June 01, 2004, 23:55 (Agree/Disagree?) Lynne, You asked how I got my "sense of self back." To be honest, I don't think I ever lost it. Maybe I had it easier than others, I don't know; I remained true to myself (to use the over-used cliché). What I mean by that is that I knew what I wanted out of life and nothing was going to take it from me. I waited until I was old enough and had a good chance in the real world and then left the group. On the "outside" I simply sought out those things I wanted and stopped at nothing until I had them. I have since graduated with a degree in biochemistry and biophysics and, yes, I am _very_ proud of my achievements. Ultimately, it is a choice you make: Do I let the past control me, or do I take control of _my_ future?(reply to this comment)

From A Female Tuesday, June 01, 2004, 16:00 (Agree/Disagree?) VFT said that she would never date an exer and I usually say the same thing. Not because I think exer guys are damaged beyond repair -- at least no more than I am damaged beyond repair as an exer girl, lol. There are simply things like wanting in-laws with new or interesting wackiness as opposed to the tired Family crap I'm sick of, giving any kids a chance to have normal grandparents, so forth. I also think it's strategically better, as someone who's wounded in certain areas myself, to have a partner who has different wounds in a different area. I think everybody has wounds, I just think I have more than enough inflicted by The Family that I don't need to deal with more of it. However, even if I were to fall for one of the many fine exer men here and change my mind, I would never, ever go for one who is still afraid of therapy. To me, that's a bad sign. (reply to this comment)

From Marc Tuesday, June 01, 2004, 17:27 (Agree/Disagree?) Are you trying to imply that I am "afraid of therapy"? If so, you read me wrong. And you find it a "bad sign"? Well, that's a nice blanket statement that began with "never, ever" and is characteristic of judgmental people.(reply to this comment)

From A Female Wednesday, June 02, 2004, 07:29 (Agree/Disagree?) Believe it or not, no, I was not trying to imply that you are "afraid of therapy." I really don't have a vested interest in your going to therapy. I see you consider my boundary for myself to be a "blanket statement." Well if it is, it only affects the size of my dating pool and I think I have the right to decide such things. You find my "never, ever" rule for myself an indication that I am a "judgmental" person. All it really affects is who I would consider dating, but first they'd have to make my neurotic cuts on other matters, and _then_ the only one(s) losing out would be the loser(s) who somehow found themselves in my sorry league. I don't think you have anything to worry about. Cheers!(reply to this comment)

From Vicky Tuesday, June 01, 2004, 14:30 (Agree/Disagree?) Are you the Marc I lived with in Poland, 1994? (reply to this comment)

From Marc Tuesday, June 01, 2004, 17:22 (Agree/Disagree?) Vicky: Yes. I am that Marc. How are you doing? I never hear from Gabe. How's he doing? You still have my email address, right? Later, Marc(reply to this comment)

From Vicky Wednesday, June 02, 2004, 00:02 (Agree/Disagree?) Marc: Hey! We're alright, thanks. Gabe doesn't email much, as you know. Come to think of it, neither do I! We've still got your email, I'll write sometime... Have a good day!(reply to this comment)

From venus_fly_trap Tuesday, June 01, 2004, 09:37 (Agree/Disagree?) i have never trusted anyone including myself. we were raised to put our trust in leadership and god aka berg. we were not to trust in ourselves, in our own wisdom, in our own desires or thoughts. everything we believed in was to come from outside of ourselves. the internal balance that is created in the gut from early childhood and on was never instilled in us. trust was never something we were allowed to question. we were not allowed to ask ourselves if something was right or wrong if it was given to us by the leadership it was so. this is the basis for brainwashing. destroy trust in the self then make the mind dependent on outside sources. if a person cannot trust themself you cannot expect them to trust anyone else. i would not be hurt by this lynn he is not not trusting you because of you who are. it has been drilled into him from childhood...(reply to this comment)

From Vicky Tuesday, June 01, 2004, 02:02 (Agree/Disagree?) While I agree with a lot of what Marc said, I want to say that I think the comparison between asking for an engagement ring and sex before marriage is far too simplistic. The effects of giving in to pressure to give someone a piece of jewellery does not come anywhere near to the implications of going against your own deeply-held views on something as important in a relationship as sex! I think that it would cause big problems for you to relinquish your rights over your own body, and this is NOT one of the issues you should compromise on for the sake of pleasing your ex-boyfriend. Although I fully understand where he is coming from on this issue, I feel that he is wrong in attempting to make you change your mind - If he cannot accept your views on sex then I would be hesitant to take the relationship further, as he is demonstrating a profound lack of respect for you and your wishes. As far as his parents and their 'exhortations,' you'll need to decide early on that you won't let them rule the roost, so to speak. - TF is screwed up and its members have many, many wierd ideas about what's the 'right way' to live one's life. They won't support you in getting a degree, because they believe all you need to know is God's Word, they won't ever come around to accepting 'system music,' or TV. Unless you are willing to give up all these things and MANY more in order to please your future in-laws, you need to take a strong stand on this point, so that you can go ahead with your life without abdicating your rights in choosing your own lifestyle. Family people are notoriously stubborn in their views of right and wrong and there is little hope that you will be able to convince them on any given issue, so if you are going to marry into this family you will have to be prepared to agree to disagree on many fundamental issues. As far as the anger problems, yes he probably does need therapy. TF maintained a constant 'be happy' policy, so any sadness, hurt and anger were often internalised for fear of correction. This means that upon leaving there are sometimes serious difficulties with uncontrollable anger, due to years of burying 'negative' emotions. I doubt that it will get better without a serious attempt at therapy. But, like Marc said, it's a prospect many ex-fam are loathe to explore. I hope you can work it out. (reply to this comment)

From thoughts Tuesday, June 01, 2004, 07:06 (Agree/Disagree?) Vicky, I think you gave great advice. I will point out however, that there is no such thing as to "marry into [a] family" who are in The Family, due to the vast chasm between what they think about marriage, etc. My opinion is that in some cases where families of origing are toxic enough, it's better to think of creating one's own new family going forward. Just my opinion. I also think that if the exers who are scared of counseling gave it "worldly" counseling a try, they would be surprised to find that any ethical counselor would be on their side, and unethical counselors are subject to professional discipline. I totally understand the avoidance of things that seem like they echo bad experiences of the past. I do that myself, it just happens to be that I gave counseling a try early on and it's a fabulous luxury to have an advocate for my best interests. (reply to this comment)

From Vicky Tuesday, June 01, 2004, 09:37 (Agree/Disagree?) I agree with you on both counts. My point, although now that I read it again I can see wasn't very clear, was that it would be best for Lynne not to attempt to listen to everything her prospective in-laws think but instead be prepared to stand her ground. As far as family ties and all that, yes, if it was an ideal world I would say don't have much to do with them, but I can't really give that kind of advice - I don't know the people involved, the power-dynamics within the family or the relationship Lynne's ex has with his parents. As far as counselling goes I actually think it's a good idea for most, if not all, ex-members, especially if one is experiencing levels of anger that could become dangerous to oneself or others. It is often difficult to overcome that type of emotional response without proper help.(reply to this comment)