I was raped

---

Well i was looking over my life. Like the stuff i have done as a child and stuff i didnt do. The things iv saw and places i went. When it just popped in my head. When i was about 6 years old i was raped. (im 16 now) There was this next door nabor who was about 17 or so.He said we were going to play a game and i had to take off my clothes and all that. So i did (come on i was like 5 or 6 i had no idea) and then he put covers over me ( we were in the back yard) So i could not see anything. Then he had at me for i guess 7 minutes then he came in my ass (he said he was drinking milk and spilled some on me Then his sister came in the back yard and screamed, " ANOTHER ONE COME ON... IM TELLING MOM" He ran off going, " no no no don't" im like, " wtf" so i got up pull my pants up and walked home. Im sure i can of find out were he lives now but i dont feel like it. To embarrassing to talk about it in court or the police station.eh just thought id share.

Did he actually penetrate you or just ejaculated ON you? Seems like it was the latter. It doesn't seem like it was especially traumatic to you, given that you just remembered it. I don't know if this was a rape or molestation. But that guy is probably messed up in the head and he should have been reported. Given that it's been 10 years.. I doubt you'd get very far with anything at this point.

Quote:Given that it's been 10 years.. I doubt you'd get very far with anything at this point.Well apparently his sister was saying "another one" so it obviously wasn't his first time. If he is still out there doing this then at the very least Airborne could be helping others.

Yes I agree, but I seriously think it would be very difficult to substantiate the accusation after so long.

I was just wondering, how certain are you that what your remembering is an actual event as apposed to one that your mind has fabricated, in whole or in part?Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it didn't happen. I'm just wondering how certain you are that it happened, how well and how much do you remember and how much of that memory is your brain filling in the gaps. Do you have any feel for that? The reason I ask is 6 is young and 10 years was a long time ago when considering the reliability of the memory. I have a memory, that's very clear and vivid, of riding in a London Taxi going by the royal residence and Parliament among other places, from when I was about 6. The only problem, as I learned at 21 when I asked about it, is that I've never been to London. Up until I asked, I had always told everyone and assumed that I had been there when I was small. It was when I asked to see the pic's, which I also have a memory of seeing, that I found out I hadn't.Come to find out, what I was remembering was riding in London Taxi somewhere in Colorado. All the rest of that brilliant, clear and precise memory was fabricated by my brain. Is it at all possible that could be some of what is at the root of your memories. Again I'm in no way saying that it is. I'm just putting this out there as a possibility.

I'm just curious, if a 17 year old guy was having anal sex with a 6yo (especially without lube) wouldn't the 6yo be in absolute agony?

Your analogy is hardly relevant. I shouldn't have to point out that there is a vast difference between confusing such childhood details as remembering where you were when you rode the London Taxi, and remembering a sexual assault.

I recently read some research on childhood sexual assault that showed that a very small percentage (like less than 8%) of all reports of childhood sexual abuse are false. (If anyone wants to call me out and demand references before my information has any credibility, I'll be happy to dig that up for you.) It has also been shown that there is very little evidence for the whole "false memory" thing.

If someone is remembering a sexual assault from ten years ago, even if the details are sketchy, there is probably something there.

To the OP. I would really encourage you to report this to someone. You never know what might come of it. You might be able to, with help, figure out who the kid was. And it might be good for you to see someone with whom you can talk about this at least once. It is true that some folks aren't as traumatized as others by childhood sexual assault. It's quite possible that the events and your memory of them will have little or no negative impact on your quality of life. I hope that is the case for you.

I don't rember pain.But i rember it like it was yesterday.

I'd like to see the references, damien. I've heard that there is excellent evidence for false memories, and I have seen a filmed demonstration of one generated under hypnosis. I believe there has been at least one conviction for sexual assault where a recovered memory was later proved beyond doubt to be false. A sexual assault is not something magic that is immune to normal sources of error.

That doesn't mean, of course, that AIRBORNE101's memory is false; just that we can never be quite sure of our memories. Most sexual assaults are things that the victims find it impossible to forget and it's quite clear that they happened. It's when people remember things decades later that they had apparently completely forgotten, or where they apply new interpretations to old memories, that memories are less reliable.

U keep saying im not lieing but yet your still calling me a liar. Just not out right.

No, I'm not calling you a liar, AIRBORNE101. I was disputing damien's blanket rejection of false memory syndrome. It's not not that you or anyone deliberately tells an untruth - the issue is how reliable or otherwise memory is. The problem is that for most people the memory only captures some of the scene, and the brain fills in the rest of the details later from imagination when the memory is re-accessed. These later created details can end up as part of the memory, particularly if they are then given importance.You're still close to when it happened and there's no reason to suppose your memory is any less reliable than anyone's. It seems likely that your memory is accurate and you were sexually assaulted (probably without penetration). However, it wouldn't be possible for your neighbour to be safely convicted on that alone without corroborating evidence (such as his sister's evidence).

Hold on damien, I never said that there was nothing there, please go back and re-read without your jaundice eye. All I asked was how certain the OP was in his memories.If you think through my analogy you will relize, as should anyone who is capable of reading it, that even in my incorrect memory there was a lot of fact. What I was pointing out, is the minds ability to be rather fictive when filling in the gaps in memory, even fresh memories. Are you saying that the mind, in fact, does not do that because that is contrary to everything I have ever heard or read and to my own anecdotal experiences, so I would like to know.>>>"I recently read some research on childhood sexual assault that showed that a very small percentage (like less than 8%) of all reports of childhood sexual abuse are false."Are you talking about current abuse or cases of repressed memory or both. If it includes anything about repressed memory how can they know. Instead of a citation, I would like to know the parameters and controls of the study. But beyond that, I still fail to see what significance that study has to your argument here. Personally I think my analogy has more relevance than the study your citing unless you can demonstrate otherwise. I would think that studies that involve repressed or recovered memories and their accuracy would have far more relevance to the discussion, than what percentage of sexual abuse cases are false. Would you agree or disagree with that? Rather than give blind deference to memory, I would like to know what the scientific community says about its accuracy and reliability. Furthermore, I never said the memory was "false". What I questioned was the certainty and clarity with which it is remembered. For instance, in my taxi analogy, I did ride in a taxi but it was the location and what I saw along the way that I had wrong. Regardless of the fact that I remember it with great clarity it still lead me to the wrong conclusion about what I had done and where I had been. Here are a couple more personal example of the imprecise nature of memory. When I was four I accidentally locked myself in a hotel bathroom for an hour and half. They had to break down the door I was screaming and terrified the whole time. I remember it being a lackluster, dingy avocado green, typical tiny hotel bathroom. It wasn't, we were in a sweet that had a large, all marble bath, that had a huge window so the occupant could enjoy the view of the mountains from the tub. So it happened but my memory of it has little relevant detail to the actual event. Here's another, when I was 5 or 6 we were again traveling, I had a balloon in the trunk of the car when we stopped at the hotel and the trunk was opened the balloon flew away. I can see it clear as day. The car, mom, granny, the hotel, the mountains. The problem with that memory is, while it did happen, I envision it taking place in a hotel on the lake just outside Jackson Hole, Wyoming, where we stayed when I was about eleven. That's not where it happened we were staying in an adobe style hotel in downtown Santa Fe.In all three of my analogies there is a reason for the memory but the details are what is wrong and that can, in a great enough quantity, have a very real, very negative impact on the accuracy and reliability of the memory.Suppose the minds eye can't quit recall the face of the attacker and it has put in its place the nearest most likely face it can remember. What if the same holds true for the location. Aren't those possibilities? If those are indeed possibilities, how reliable would you categorize those memories? Do you think that's an uncommon enough happing that those memories can be trusted? Trusted enough to level an accusation, as you and others suggest, knowing what such a thing could do someone's life. Thus my original question to the OP, what degree of certainty do you have about these memories.Am I completely off base? Your the Doc not me, so let me know.

that's horrible and sick. I'm sorry that happened to you. people are really messed up.the most traumatizing things could happen to a person and they could forget and not remember till years later. that happened to me last year when I found a scar on my back from when my cousin pushed me down the stairs at 5. I didn't even remember it till then.

Originally Posted By: IneligibleI'd like to see the references, damien. I'm actually in the library where I originally found that research. However, they are closing in a couple of hours. If I don't find it today, I promise I won't let this go without getting it posted here.As for your statement on another post, I wasn't meaning to categorically deny false memories. There is, as you and others suggest, evidence that false memories occur. I guess what I was trying to say, in a possibly knee-jerk no-week-should-be-this-stressfull kind of way, is that when someone speaks of memories of childhood abuse, there's a far greater chance that the abuse happened than that it didn't. So I was just questioning why some folks' first response to the OP would be of the "are you sure it's not a false memory" ilk. Speaking as a therapist who has several adolescents with childhood sexual abuse on his caseload, I believe the first response should be to take care of the kid, assure him that it wasn't his fault and that he can be okay, try to make it safe for him to talk about it, and then in time deal with the factuality of the report.

Originally Posted By: OldFolksIn all three of my analogies there is a reason for the memory but the details are what is wrong and that can, in a great enough quantity, have a very real, very negative impact on the accuracy and reliability of the memory.you are making my point for me. In all the examples you gave, the event actually happened. It's the details you can't remember. You were indeed locked in the bathroom. You just can't remember where it was and what color the walls were. In the same way, a person might remember the trauma of sexual abuse, but not be able to recall where, what color, or even who. So while forgetting details might make it difficult to reconstruct an even sufficiently to bring charges against anyone, it hardly rises to the level of asking someone to question whether or not they were even victimized at all.

Sorry to triple post, but I just found some of the information I was referring to in the earlier post.Salter, A.C. (1988). Treating Child Sex Offenders and Victims. Sage, CaliforniaAnna Salter reports that her conclusions from a review of the literature on childhood sexual abuse. She concludes that false reporting of childhood sexual abuse is rare and occurs in no more than 2% of cases. She also reports that false reports by adults and children combined only account for up to 8% of reporting. this is also good information:MacDonald, K., Lambie, I., and Simmonds, L. (1995). Counselling for sexual abuse: A therapist's guide to working with adults, children, and families. Melbourne, Oxford University Press."Memories of childhood abuse occur at a number of levels. The client may recall only that the abuse occurred, or they may recall the details of what happened. They may recall the actions, or they may recall other aspects, such as emotions, sights, sounds, smells, or tactile details. Working through one set of memories might allow space for the recall of others.It is not necessary for every client to recall the details of the abuse. Healing can occur without clear memories, and it is important not to push people to remember more than they can recall accurately, or more than they are ready to deal with. Particularly for people who have been traumatized, however, some memory of the abuse and acknowledgment of its effects can play an important part in healing."

Hi damien, I think this should be a different thread and perhaps a different time. I'd just say that by "false reporting" I would imagine Salter is talking about deliberate lying rather than false memories, which were scarcely on the radar then. 1988 is too early - so much happened in the nineties, things changed a lot, there were some serious excesses, and a lot has been learnt.A therapist is also in a different position to the police and courts. If a therapist misinterprets the situation, the therapy is just less effective. A court, however, needs to be sure that the person they are about to send to prison for the rest of his life isn't an innocent man.

I agree totally. But this forum isn't a court of law. So when someone posts that they were raped as a child, it is not appropriate nor helpful to immediately question the truth of his statement.

Nor is it appropriate to say "report it" and see if anything "come(s) of it". That kind of knee jerk, politically correct, vacuous reaction could possibly inflict even more injury. I realize it's not the clinician's job to determine the authenticity of the memory but when they start claiming it valid enough to level uncorroborated accusations, I think, they then have taken on the mantle of responsibility for determining the indeterminable, that is whether or not the memory is authentic.What you said in your last post it well taken. However, your missing the point, that is, there is value to the O.P., I think, in knowing all of what is being remembered may or may not be accurate. There is value, to anyone, in knowing the fallibility of memory and the tricks and misinformation it can produce and that, as far as I can tell, there is no definitive way to tell what is a fabricated memory and what is a real memory. I think that's most especially true when people are advising him to report it to the authorities.Putting myself in the OP's shoe's, which is what I try to do with all posts I respond to, I would want to know how my memory works and all it's short comings. All that was stated was to explain the limitations of the mind, as I understand them. I think that is important for the OP as well as everyone else to know. What is to be gained by the OP, or anyone, by being under the false impression that their memories are infallible on such matters? I for one, think it more helpful to understand the workings and limitations of my mind, then, from there, proceed in informed knowledge in dealing with what may very well be a traumatic event. If that's overly pragmatic I offer no apology because I sincerely believe it does more harm to proceed through life with delusional ideas of how things work, be they scientific inquiry, health or recovered memory.

Originally Posted By: damien...appropriate nor helpful to immediately question the truth of his statement.One more thing, (this has been bothering me since my previous post this morning) are you simply being inaccurate or are you trying to frame the argument with the above quote?Since when does questioning a person on the certainty of a memory equate to questioning their motive for making a statement with regard to their memory. No where in this thread did anyone question whether or not the OP was telling the truth. So, any argument should not be constructed in such a mold.