A year ago, Franky Dean, a 24-year-old documentary film-making master’s student, decided to make a phone call she’d been avoiding nearly half her life. She was sitting in a dark computer room in New York University’s journalism institute in Manhattan when she FaceTimed her parents. They were in the living room at her home in the UK, where she grew up. Franky told them she’d just filed a police report about something that had happened more than a decade earlier. When Franky was 12, she had been sexually abused by a close friend’s dad.

And then her mum said two words that would change her life, again, for ever: “We know.”

It was meant to be a climactic moment – a revelation that Franky had been building up to for years. Instead, it was the beginning of another story – the unravelling of a shadow narrative that spanned half of Franky’s life. It’s a story about what happens when police assume survivors of sexual abuse to be “unknowing victims” – a series of misinterpretations and missteps that amounted to Franky spending 12 years hiding her abuse from her parents while they spent 12 years hiding it from her.

  • conciselyverbose
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    24
    ·
    5 hours ago

    I don’t understand the argument against it.

    It’s their body. They don’t just have a right to know. They need to know.

    • cm0002@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 hours ago

      It’s a good point, if one truly doesn’t know and really is continuing on with life just fine then telling them would I’m effect cause trauma where there was none before

      One of the most prolific incidents of unknowing victims in recent years was the case of Reynhard Sinaga, who drugged and raped at least 48 men in Manchester between 2015 and 2017. Almost all the victims had no idea they had been raped until police officers knocked on the door years later.

      “It was a moral dilemma,” says Lisa Waters, the former child service manager at St Mary’s sexual assault referral centre, who worked with police on these visits. “You can’t just go in there, tell them what’s happened and drop the bombshell and walk away. You have an obligation to keep people safe.”

      Some victims were numb; others were furious. “Why have you told me this?” Waters recalls them asking. “I had no idea that this happened to me. You’ve ruined my life. So why have you told me?” But for other victims, the revelation was a relief.

      There’s no good answer on this, maybe some sort of initial generic question like “Something bad has happened to you in your past you maybe unaware of, would you like details?”

      It would still cause one to worry about that something has happened to them, but at least they would have time to figure out their own best way forward before being bombarded with details

      • conciselyverbose
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        2 hours ago

        That’s genuinely entirely insane.

        Not notifying them should be a serious crime with no defense or mitigating factors and an extremely long minimum sentence.

        They have to know.

        • cm0002@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 hour ago

          They have to know.

          People have an equal right to not want to know something

          • conciselyverbose
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 hour ago

            The trauma happened. Gaslighting them into thinking it didn’t can’t make them better. Your brain still processes shit whether you’re consciously aware of it or not.

            There is no possible healthy path forward that doesn’t involve knowing reality. “Not wanting to know” isn’t possible without knowing what you supposedly don’t want to know. Not telling them is not, under any circumstances, forgivable.

            They have to know, and they have to have to get therapy. There’s no other path to recovery.

              • conciselyverbose
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                3 minutes ago

                Not consciously knowing doesn’t mean their brain isn’t affected.

                Not telling them is gaslighting whether they’re consciously aware or not.

            • cm0002@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 hour ago

              Whether to seek therapy or even go on a path to recovery is their choice to make, are you advocating to force people onto a path of recovery‽

              It’s true your brain is always processing things, but it’s not guaranteed that it’ll process it into trauma PTSD or another mental health issue. It’s perfectly capable of processing it’s way out of major issues. There are plenty of people who have gone through traumatic things both aware and unaware in which they suffered no I’ll effect. It happens. That bit of the article I quoted is of one such person.

              • conciselyverbose
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                58 minutes ago

                Am I advocating for forcing adults into therapy? Obviously barring court ordered therapy, no. But children are not capable of making that decision and it is not theoretically possible that an adult who doesn’t want to inform them is acting in their interest. Not getting a child rape victim therapy is child abuse.

                Informed consent to not know is not even theoretically within the realm of possibility. There’s a reason informed consent is always the requirement for all treatment. It’s because no one else can possibly be justified in making the decision.

                The patient must be informed on reality in order to be capable of choosing a path forward. They cannot possibly make decisions while being lied to.

                • cm0002@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  28 minutes ago

                  I don’t think you read the second half of my original comment

                  There’s no good answer on this, maybe some sort of initial generic question like “Something bad has happened to you in your past you maybe unaware of, would you like details?”

                  It would still cause one to worry about that something has happened to them, but at least they would have time to figure out their own best way forward before being bombarded with details

                  • conciselyverbose
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    23 minutes ago

                    I did. Your solution is not acceptable. It is not theoretically possible to give informed consent not to be told, because you unconditionally have to have the details to be capable of making the decision.