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.

  • cm0002@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    7 hours 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@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      7 hours 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.

      • cm0002@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        4 hours ago

        It’s pretty simple really

        Detective: “Excuse me, I’m Detective so-so, recently we’ve come into some information that indicates something traumatic may have occurred in your past, are you ready to hear the details or would you like some time to prepare?”

        Person: “WHAT‽ I’m gonna need some time to prepare, I’ll contact you when I’m ready”

        This’ll give those vulnerable time to prepare for a shit storm and those who feel they’ve already adjusted and would rather not hear about it the opportunity to decline

        Your attitude is very much “You need to hear about it no matter what or how well adjusted you are. Oh, your brain was able to process the incident without causing any I’ll effect? WELL TOO BAD YOU NEED TO HEAR IT”

        Again, not every traumatic incident results in a mental ill effect like PTSD or depression. Some people have more resilient mental stability than others. What of them? What if the disclosure itself is just too much and now they NEED therapy when they could have gone their entire life without worry?

        • conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 hours ago

          That is not, and does not in any way resemble, informed consent. Informed consent is the only possible valid standard. You cannot possibly be capable of declining to know without knowing what you’re declining.