I would trust that I can say that I’m on the up-and-up when I say that the legal system uses the term ‘abuse’ more that psychotherapy. And secondly, in most as in physical cases — spousal abuse, child abuse. We used to defer to the kinder phrase, ‘child molestation,’ which discretely meant some vague form of ‘sexual-touching-with-a-child’ (which is sick and I don’t want to think about) — oh — and ‘spousal abuse’ was simplified ‘wife beating.’ “Wife beating” was in the boroughs, of course, where the bus drivers dwelt.

Yes. Abuse. Largely a legal term (and lots-of-Latin-Phrases), it broadens in use and is a loose word used in tandem with others to describe physical-harm as well as any ‘other harm suffered.’ Surely ‘abuse’ can be used to describe the survivors of abusive psychotherapy? I’m not sure why you think ‘abuse’ to be promoted by the mental health system? Psychotherapy abuse?

Mmm. Families. I had so many. My birth family. Short-lived. Various families for a couple of years. Dad and me. Evil stepmother family. Free until I married. Wife, child, and me. Unstable, now, these 21 years. Son of none, bastards of young. I, too, grew up in the 1950’s. For a kid with only temporary families, my childhood was okay. My dad — nor anyone else — never said “we can’t afford that.” If my dad explained his reasoning well, I usually saw his point of view. When I criticised my dad about his lack of foresight for not purchasing an early CBS-COLUMBIA color television, I saw his point. Finally.

And, no, I don’t think that ‘abuse’ was most often used for ‘families.’ Even in the 1950’s ‘abuse’ was more legal than physical. We didn’t just leap from ‘wife-beating’ to ‘spousal abuse,’ it took effort. I would hate to think of all the effort gone for naught.

Maybe it’s because I’m old but I believe the word is broad enough to encompass enough shades of nefariousness-ness so that ‘evil’ should certainly not be in it, or of it.

But you can write “evil-doers” or you can write “abusers.” Doesn’t matter to me. But the evil-doing psychotherapists are unconscious of the evil that they do... and they use doing evil to others as a response to having evil done to them. It’s a snake eating it’s own tail — evil upon evil upon evil from the mid-1930’s-onward. Almost one century gone and evil becomes an unconscious trait, with unconscious evil being meted out in measure.

Yes. People usually do talk during psychotherapy. Not me! Not for over a year! I didn’t speak during that period... but I acknowledged yes and no, even started writing closing in on the end. But the evil-doers talked to me, so maybe they found redemption.

Yes. There are many points of view, so unique that one is never like another. Seldom like another. How can one (psychologist) hope to every know everything about another? I believe that they would agree that what’s impossible is impossible. I’m guessing that their abusive minds have flashes of reality.

It doesn’t matter what you call the abuser or the abused. I don’t follow your reasoning for wanting to change the words to fit a psycho-psychologist but you can have your diagnosis and I, mine.

I don’t know, but if this problem is systemic (an over-abused word) then it would blow a hole in the psychotherapy tire. As there’s no proof of a systemic hole, nor a bulge on the tire. No, it is impossible for the greatness if “some of this discussion could go beyond the limits of this forum.”

Just when I think that “I gots it,” I’m drawn under by this evil begetting evil conundrum that blows all but the abused stories. Do you fellows agree? Or are there other theories?