Why wasn’t it called r____e ?

I don’t remember how to do “trigger WARNINGS.’
++++++++++TRIGGER WARNING +++++++==

TRIGGER WARNING !+++++++++.

This is in regard to exploitation by a psychiatrist that occurred many years ago.

PrevT told me,

“He (AbusivePDoc) forced you to do something sexual...legally/technically not “rape”...but in all ways despicable and abusive like rape.”
——
1) WHY WASN’T IT R*PE? WHY?

2) Even if PrevT wasn’t calling it r*pe, she says it was still as despicable and abusive as r*pe.

I don’t understand why she didn’t talk to me more about it when I was in treatment with her?

It’s obvious to me now I was still confused by it because it wasn’t until years later when I started seeing CurrentT that it occurred to me that I still didn’t know what to call it. I was asking, “Wait, what happened to me??” Because I said, ‘no.’

I told PrevT (and the police and the medical licensing board and my civil lawyer and the sexual abuse advocate) exactly what happened,

I told PrevT that afterwards I felt ‘happy I could do that for him,’ after all. Like, I wasn’t hurt..or mad..or distressed that he had forced me to do something I didn’t want to do. How screwed up was I!?

And she never challenged me on it, that I can remember. She never challenged me with, ‘Pre, you said you couldn’t breathe....you weren’t scared?...you were *happy* about that?’

And, no, I wasn’t! I think I must have been in shock and disbelief! She didn’t make me think about it. Why didn’t she challenge me about it? Maybe there was a reason she didn’t? I don’t know.
Why?

And why wasn’t it technically or legally r*pe? ?

I'm sorry you had this experience. Perhaps the PrevT is simply just wrong. Sometimes people are just wrong and we have to know the reality and truth for ourselves.

1. Rape has technical definitions depending on your individual jurisdiction. I would never trust a therapist to know that definition.
2. Therapists have a bias in favor of themselves even where they factually know different. I think those people have a hard time acknowledging how horrible some, if not all, of them can be and giving things a softer name makes them feel better - not the client.
3. Therapists are no better than anyone else about women and their experiences at the hands of men who have taken a position of authority over those women. They will under play it when it comes to their own or just when it comes to women.

Those are my ideas.

My psychiatrist (years ago) was arrested a year to the month after exploiting me psychologically, sexually, financially and emotionally.

Found out the woman patient he exploited in this article was just nineteen years old. She appeared at his motel because she was involved in domestic violence with her husband. The psychiatrist had promised if she got away from her husband, he would help her get into a woman’s safe house.

When she showed up, the psychiatrist told her he was unable to get her into the shelter that day. He said he tried to pay for a single motel room for her but the motel was full....which was a lie. I read he told her she could spend the night in his room, and, btw, he didn’t sleep in pajamas, he hoped she didn’t mind...

What a scumbag. Here, she believed he was going to help her get away from the violence at home. When she plucked up the courage to leave...she showed up at his motel and allegedly received more sexual abuse and was held there against her will.

Reading this newspaper article about his arrest was a pivotal point for me...realizing I wasn’t the *only ‘victim’* ...and he wasn’t a good man who had just made a *mistake* with me...which is what I had been telling myself up to this point.

They set his bail at a measly $10,000 and he was never criminally prosecuted for any of his victims.

This psychiatrist disgusts me in SO many ways ..on SO many levels.

That's quite the terrible story.

And I honestly couldn't tell you why the second therapist claim it wasn't what it was, there may be variations in the exact legal definition between places but your description doesn't seem to leave any possible ambiguity in my eyes. That just sounds like a strange and pointless way to re-victimize someone.

Honestly, this is just beyond awful, you were abused by someone who was supposed to help you, then the next one seemingly gaslighted you for no apparent reason. I think it's admirable you had the desire to keep trying with mental health professionals after all that, I hope the current one is at least not an absolute piece of **** to break the trend.

Is the jurisdiction determined by county?

No - if you are in the U.S. it is by state.

Someone I know is looking up the pertinent info about the legal definition of r**e in that state for me.

SD is right that that word connotates something very specific legally. I would not be confident in saying that that’s what happened to you, though I believe we can all agree that it was sexual abuse.

Words can be important and can be used to convey certain experiences, but I think it’s more important to validate the experience that something happened. What happened to you was not okay, despite the way that laws or people may choose to label it. The professionals in your life should be validating that experience and helping you to reclaim your agency. I think that too often focus on details when we should be focused on the experience. You’re strong to be open to discussing this with your treatment team. I have issues in my life that could be considered adjacent to yours, but I don’t feel any more ready to tackle them more than when I first started therapy. You’re very brave and resilient. I hope you’re able to continue the healing process.

Thank you for your time and response. You make a lot of sense.
I want to clarify that neither PrevT or T have used therapy to focus on the details. Instead, they are responding to my questions and confusion about the details.

My mind is all mixed up emotionally and intellectually about what I think I should call what happened to me. “Exploitation” and “sexual abuse” fit.. And I don’t want to call it r**e if that’s not what it was. I also don’t want to call it r**e to lessen anyone else’s experience or to ‘elevate/exaggerate’ mine.

I’ve always heard if you say ‘no’ and you’re prevented from resisting by force or other means, that is r**e. But I’ve been wrong many times before ...it doesn’t bother me to be mistaken. I just want to know if I am.

It confuses me that RAINN states one version of the legal definition of r**e in that state ...and “the California Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) Sex Crimes Learning Domain, “Copyright 2002 provide a different legal definition in that state.

It’s confusing to me that one T says it wasn’t R...the other says it was.

It’s confusing to me that, although the PDoc was arrested for holding his 19yo patient against her will for two days and allegedly administering drugs & committing s. battery on her...(whatever that included, I don’t know)...and the detective in charge of the case was quoted in the paper saying the police found corroborating evidence in his car and motel...but the PDoc was never prosecuted for that or for any of the other allegations made by the seven women who came forward. The state medical board, on the other hand, revoked his license...

It’s all confusing.

I think one of the big issues I have is I still feel guilty, stupid and at fault for being there,...and giving consent to a good deal of what happened. I blame myself, my family blames me and thinks I’m stupid. I have no problem realizing I am definitely naive.

I believe ... I’m telling myself , on some level, that if it was called r**e, then, maybe, my family wouldn’t think it’s all my fault...

More than that, maybe *I* wouldn’t believe it was all my fault.

The perpetrator died recently and its bringing all this back up.

The legal definition of rape varies over time and place. We have come to understand rape as an absence of meaningful consent rather than previous understandings which centered more around how hard someone fought and was seen largely as a property crime against the man who owned the woman in question.

A client cannot meaningfully consent to sex with their T just as a child cannot meaningfully consent to sex with an adult. Even though in either case the person in question might “want” to have sex, the power differential is too great for that consent to mean anything.

That’s why therapists have a great degree of responsibility and that’s why this messed you up more than an ordinary relationship would have.

Precarious, I think you can call it rape. I think it’s rape. We’re not talking about a court of law now, we’re talking about you trying to understand and explain what happened. And one of the horrible things about rape is that we’re often not believed and undermined and blamed overtly or subtly when we come forward. It sounds like that’s what happened with your previous T. But now you can talk about this experience in whatever way is helpful and feels most true, and I hope your current T and the important people in your life can listen and validate that.

I’ve been working on this with T...and also emailing PrevT a little, as I’ve said.

Recently, emailed PrevT thoughts/questions similar to what I’ve posted here on this thread...maybe I’ve wondered if I have questioned whether to call it rape to lessen my responsibility and guilt? I’m ready to look at that:

Me-
“...But, now, I wonder if I need to name it...maybe call it ‘rape’... because, if it was rape, maybe my family would change their minds and not think I’m so stupid ...for putting myself in those positions, handing over thousands of dollars to him, agreeing to most of everything that we did..and believing it was all my fault.

Maybe, if it was ‘rape’, *I* would stop believing it was all my fault.

As painful as it is, I need to figure out what parts of this were all my fault.
If it is my fault...even part of it...don’t I need to know?”

PrevT :

“I think that experientially speaking it was rape...He forced sexual intimacy with you...NONE of it is your "fault"...You went to him for help...you were you...that is all you should have been...HE was the one who had the complete responsibility NOT to exploit anything about you and to help you.”

I disagree with this as a blanket statement - I think this infantalizes clients.

That doesn't mean I don't think a therapist can exploit someone - I do. I believe they can rape and sexually assault clients as well and they should be held accountable.

This has no bearing on what the charge would have been (like stopdog said, it would depend on your state), but thought you might find this definition helpful anyway.

Here is what the International Criminal Court defines rape as:

The perpetrator invaded the body of a person by conduct resulting in penetration, however slight, of any part of the body of the victim or of the perpetrator with a sexual organ, or of the **** or genital opening of the victim with any object or any other part of the body.

Similarly the FBI Uniform Crime Reporting defines rape as:

Penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or **** with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.

Kind of weird that the body part that begins with an a and ends with "nus" is automatically censored.

Whilst not a therapist/client relationship, I was raped by my doctor over a number of years. Due to my poor mental health and my experience of childhood sexual abuse, I had very little understanding of my boundaries and rights. Once in therapy, I found it clarifying and empowering to consider the absolute legal and professional ethic lines regarding a patient's inability to consent. I did not consider this infantalising, it bolstered my confidence. Protecting an individual's rights by law (and by the Medical Council in my case) even when an individual can't recognise them is the basis of safe society.

This is not about whether individual clients can sometimes consent. This is an issue of classification. You might feel able to consent to sex with a therapist, but we need to protect the most vulnerable women and understand women as a class not as a series of individuals. "I don't mind burglars stealing my stuff" doesn't mean we sometimes make burglary legal.

I'm not sure the need to protect one group is justification for defining the experiences of the other.

This is how human rights work. There is no distinction between group and other. Age of consent laws are an example. In the UK, a 15 year old girl might feel able to consent to sex with an 18 year old, but she is classified as being as vulnerable as a 13 year old. An individual can describe their experiences however they like, but that doesn't make any sense in the context of broader safe guarding issues.

Yes, there is no distinction and that is my issue with your argument. There should be distinctions. The criminal justice system is not the epitome of justice. I'm not inclined to get my ideas of right and wrong from bureaucracy, let alone misconstrue legislation as bearing some inherent truth upon which I should define myself or my experiences. I don't think taking shortcuts by generalizing will ultimately serve women. I understand the impetus for these measures, I just think they conflict with the ultimate goal of feminism and that does concern me.

I am not arguing that women are well served by the criminal justice system. We are demonstrably disregarded. However, assuming that we could apply the law in a way which best served women as a class, this would not conflict with radical feminism. Treating women as a class is at odds with liberal feminism, but that is only one (inadequate, in my view) strand of feminism.

I am confused by the fact that you are applying normative ethics - we "should" have distinctions between group and individual - whilst simultaneously wanting to maintain an optional application - no individual "should" be treated in a certain way.

In any case, I think I am dragging us away from the content of this thread and I want to respect the fact that this is probably sensitive material for precaryous.