http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1300/J076v23n03_06
Abstract
Many male sex offenders against children say they themselves were sexually abused in childhood. This observation has supported several variations of what has come to be known as the “abuse-to-abuser hypothesis.” This study tested three versions of the abuse-to-abuser hypothesis: (a) the age men are abused determines the age of their sexual victims; (b) sexually abused men are likely to reenact the type of abuse they experienced; (c) men who were sexually abused as children are more likely to sexually abuse same-sexed victims. A consecutive series was retrospectively reviewed consisting of 100 men accused of sexually abusing children. Subjects completed a standardized, semi-structured interview. Men with personal histories of sexual abuse (Assaulted offenders) and men without sexual abuse histories (Non-Assaulted offenders) were compared in terms of victim age, type of offense, and sex of victim using t-tests, correlation coefficients and Chi-square tests. Twenty percent of the sample reported past childhood sexual abuse. There were no significant differences between the personal age of abuse of Assaulted offenders, victim ages of Assaulted offenders, or victim ages of Non-Assaulted offenders (mean age was approximately 8 years in each case). There was a statistically non-significant trend for offenders who were genitally assaulted as children to be more likely as adults to commit genital assaults on children. There was no significant difference between Assaulted offenders and other offenders in terms of frequency of male victims. However, significantly more offenders who denied pedophilic interests also denied childhood histories of sexual assault. This study found no support for an association between age of abuse of the offender and that offenders' victim. The nature of the relationship betweens seriousness of the offenders' own abuse and the seriousness of their offenses needs further study. Sexually assaulted offenders are no more likely to abuse boys than Non-Assaulted offenders. However, sexually assaulted offenders may be more willing to admit to pedophilic fantasies than non-assaulted offenders. Implications for the “abuse-to-ab user” hypothesis are discussed.
Females are just as likely to become an abuser and denier that the problem even exists because for them ther is no issue let alone one that will net the offender a decade in jail.
Like I said about you other post that was similar, Don't blame your insanity on me, you were one fuked up bitch before you ever started trolling me. That doesn't always work out well for the one doing the trolling.
Best get started on your recovery if it is not already too late.
https://emergingfrombroken.com/victims-can-become-the-biggest-abusers-the-cycle-of-abuse/
But these controllers and psychological abusers (this applies to all types of abuse and abusers) don’t prove or even show their love for the victim at all because they are exempt from their own “rules of love”.
Victims and survivors of this dysfunctional family system grow up going one of two ways OR as in the case of my mother, going both ways;
a) they believe that they can BE loved by being compliant and proving love to some people, and they believe that being loved is compliance and obedience from others. My mother made me jump through her hoops just as she jumped through everyone else’s hoops. (This is exactly like a pecking order system; think about who your oppressors, owners or captors are willing to serve.)
b) Others hang on to the belief that compliance and service is love, and they give in to their own children’s every whim falsely believing that doing that will ensure their kids love them. (which is a type of neglect) But because
that also isn’t love, that doesn’t work either.
All abusers come from abuse. All abuse has its roots in victim mentality and abusers abuse out of that victim mentality.
The cycle is repeated because it is the accepted definition of love and many devalued children like my mother, learn to wait until they are adults so they can feel “loved” through expecting and forcing someone else’s compliance and obedience.
In the dysfunctional relationship model that I learned from them, I was expected to save them (by proving my love over and over, thereby validating them) and I believed that I was failing to do that. I believed that it was my role in their lives to do it so I believed it was my failure that I could not. And I believed it was my job to do it because that is what I was taught.
I had to let go of those false beliefs.
I learned to let go of my belief that I could actually help them by loving them “the way they wanted me to.”
One of the major freedom keys in my recovery was realizing that the definitions of love and relationship that were taught to me (by example) were wrong. The key was to realize that relationship conducted that way is dysfunctional and is
never going to work. As long as I tried to function within that sick dysfunctional system, I could not heal. And because I could not heal, there were parts of the cycle of abuse still being passed on. I had to face the fear of standing up to it. If the truth was going to set me free then I had to find the truth.