What is an anti-spanking survivor? Many misunderstand what the actual survivorship level entails. Anti-spanking traumatic means that you have a side trauma from physical abuse, with sexual abuse. Very few anti-spanking advocates in the United States are anti-spanking survivors, meaning that was their main trauma. For me, that's what it was, in the form of lawful child abuse. All abuse should be unlawful that is perceived by the child...Anti-spanking trauma is a sexual trauma, in terms of levels. I see it as a legal trauma, not a religious trauma. My main trauma is connected to one law in the English common law, the "reasonable chastisement" defense. No chastisement of a child is reasonable.
The "reasonable chastisement" defense, I'm grateful to know, does not come from the the Bible, but comes from a corruption of God's Word as per Roman law. The English common law comes from Roman law, as England is a former Roman state. Common law means unwritten law, meaning case law about various broad topics, in which the written law is reflected.
I hated the fact that my abuse was legal. Anti-spanking trauma is acceptance of doom in that regard, meaning I always recognized being struck as a child as "off", in a scary way. So, I developed a special interest in laws, and that was to gauge my rights as a child. I wanted some law to use against my parents, and I kept looking, and looking, and looking, for an excuse to lock up my parents. The more I searched, the more angry I got. When it became clear that I "have no rights because you are a child", I was scared at one level, but ANGRY on the surface. Think raised fist in the sunshine, and you get my attitude then.
The law itself can abuse others simply for existing, meaning the "reasonable chastisement" defense is a...and then my legal oppressors in past tense stop me here. Oh well. Shows their true colors.
...Now let's get back to where we started. My parents have apologized, and I forgive them. My abuser, therefore, isn't a human being, but a piece of paper - "reasonable chastisement". I am deathly afraid of that law, meaning what it allows, meaning both together.
I am more of a youth rights advocate these days, but due to the moral legal and legal nature of my work, I must use the children's rights banner.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Any comment that
1. Endorses child abuse (including pornography of such)
2. Imposes want to the point of imposition, meaning entitlement.
3. Contains self-entitled parent rhetoric, to the point of self-victimization
will not be published. Flexible application. Debate is allowed, but only civil arguments that presume the best of intentions in their opponent, on both sides.