Why So Few of Marc Gafni's Survivors Have Come Forward

As of today, only two survivors of Marc Gafni's (also known as Mordechai Gafni, Mordechai Winiarz, or Mordechai Winyarz) abuses have come forward with their names and their stories. They are the two who were youngest (that we know about) and who were raped (Judy Mitzner Rogers and now Sara Kabakov). Gafni's 3rd ex-wife came forward with her story, both in a deposition by email many years ago, and recently in a first-person account in the Times of Israel, of  life being married to Gafni, but she has chosen not to have her name attached to those stories.

[See also, Marc Gafni: Beneath and Behind the Denials]

A Little Background

Gafni has denied that he raped Sara, claiming the "relationship" was about love in the recent NYT story about him.

Mr. Gafni was quoted saying they had been in love. He added, “She was 14 going on 35, and I never forced her.” In a recent interview, the woman, who asked not to be identified, said that she stood by her account from 2004 and that the encounters were not consensual.

Gafni's story does not mesh at all with the way Sara experienced his molestation (which was statutory rape, but the statute of limitations has expired):

I remember clearly that when he tried to touch me, I pushed him away, repeatedly. I remember saying “No!” over and over again. No one had talked to me about sexual abuse, but I remember knowing intuitively, with every cell of my body, that this was wrong.

This pattern repeated itself, from the fall of 1980 through the spring of 1981. I became a girl disconnected from the world around her, inhabiting instead one full of contradiction and betrayal. I was trapped in a horrible situation with no way out that I could see. If I told, I would be blamed and shamed for what had happened.

Each morning after being molested, I would wake up and walk into the living room, and see him wildly shuckling, rocking back and forth while beating his chest. He said he was doing teshuvah, repenting for what he had done the night before, and he told me that I should join him in doing teshuvah, too. I didn’t pray or do teshuvah, but just stared at him in disbelief. He really believed that I was a partner in sin. And then it would happen again: After every fervent bout of repentance, he would wake me up in the middle of the night the following week.

Does the young girl in the picture below look like she's "14 going on 35"?

Sara did not come forward with her story, in her own name, until her essay, January 12th, 2016, at The Forward (linked to above). She had told it, publicly, once before--anonymously--to Gary Rosenblatt for his 2004 expose on Gafni's abuse history.

In the months following the end of Gafni's abuse, she tried to tell someone what had happened to her twice. Both times she was ignored or dismissed. When she was 18, she had the courage to finally tell her parents, but their response was, "How could you let him do that to you?" And we wonder why girls and women do not tell their stories.

Over the years, when I told people about the abuse I endured at Gafni’s hands, many asked, “Why didn’t you tell anyone?” That’s a good question. But a better question is what happened when I did tell. It was almost as if I had told no one. People in the Jewish community who had the power and stature to make the abuse stop did not step up.

* * * *

On the other hand, Judy Mitzner told her story and had a friend, Susan, to support her (both Judy and Susan were threatened by Gafni to stay silent).

I didn’t wait until years later to reveal what happened, as many do. I spoke out in 1986 right after it happened, and so few would even listen let alone accept it as truth.  I continued to tell my story, continued to cry out for help on so many levels and so little was done.  I was shuffled around and told to keep quiet even by those who knew the truth.  No one wanted to believe that this could happen in the Rabbinate. 

A few days after Gafni first raped her, she finally had a chance to tell her friend Susan what had happened.

It was then that Susan told me that she had already heard from Mordechai. He had called her prior to Shabbat “warning” her about my “delusional” stories, my emotional instability and attempting to compel her into allegiance. Susan diligently listened to the facts, my fears, and unequivocally assured me of her loyalty and confidence in my credibility. She told me that he had made inappropriate advances to her in the past. Susan was there for me through what would be the remaining eighteen months of hell. We were kids trying to figure out how to handle this trauma with no help or support from our parents or the community. I don’t remember much after that conversation.

I do remember telling my parents with Susan by my side what had occurred. I remember how they blamed me since it was I who left the house to begin with. I remember the next year and a half of harassment and mental games.

Judy suffered 18 months of harassment by Gafni before he moved on. Around the end of that time, he moved (was sent?) to Boca Raton, FL, where he is alleged to have continued to sexually manipulate young, female members of his Temple, before then moving (escaping?) to Israel.

* * * *

It's interesting that, so far, only survivors from Gafni's abuses as a rabbi have come forward. In addition to them, a group of former students and more than 100 rabbis (many of whom defended him until 2006 and the Israel abuses) have signed onto a petition seeking to stop Gafni from committing further abuses, naming John Mackey of Whole Foods, Esalen (where Gafni had been scheduled for a workshop in February, now canceled by Gafni), Ken Wilber, and others as supporters who need to withdraw their support. [Please sign the petition if you have not already.]

The sources of the stories, aside from the original New York Times piece, and a follow-up piece a week later by the New York Daily News, have mostly been Jewish as well (The Forward, The Times of Israel, Tablet Magazine, and a few others).

Why So Few Survivors Come Forward

It is believed that only 15.8 to 35 percent of all sexual assaults are reported to the police (U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2013; Wolitzky-Taylor et al, 2010) [1, 2]. And if the survivor knows the perpetrator, the real number is much lower:

• When an offender is an intimate partner or former intimate partner, only 25 percent of sexual assaults are reported to the police.
• When an offender is a friend or acquaintance, only 18 to 40 percent of sexual assaults are reported.
• When an offender is a stranger, between 46 and 66 percent of sexual assaults are reported. (U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2003) [3]

So, overall, reporting is pretty minimal--but it is even lower when the survivor knows the perpetrator.

Those who do not report sex offenses offer one or more of the following reasons:

• Fear of reprisal
• Personal matter
• Reported to a different official
• Not important enough to respondent
• Belief that the police would not do anything to help
• Belief that the police could not do anything to help
• Did not want to get offender in trouble with law
• Did not want family to know
• Did not want others to know
• Not enough proof
• Fear of the justice system
• Did not know how
• Feel the crime was not “serious enough”
• Fear of lack of evidence
• Unsure about perpetrator’s intent (D. Kilpatrick et al., 2007; U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2013; Wolitzky-Taylor et al, 2010) [4, 1, 2]

In my experience, it's common for women (and men) not to report out of fear of reprisal, or because they just want to forget that it ever happened and move on, or because they took [many] showers after it happened so there is no forensic exam evidence, or because they are afraid they will be made to appear responsible for getting molested or raped (of which the police are often guilty), especially by defense attorneys.

If the survivor knows the perpetrator, there is even more fear, and more self-recrimination, and more doubt that it was not consensual ("maybe I led him on," or "maybe I misunderstood' or "I could have gotten away somehow" or "why did I freeze").

As a result of the low reporting rates, only 9 percent of rapists are prosecuted. Of those, only 5 percent result in a felony conviction. And only 2-3 percent of rapists are sent to prison for even one day.

• 97-98 percent of rapists get away with it, and walk away, free to assault again.

Sociopaths Are Predators Who Often Do Not Rape

When the offender is a psychopath or a sociopath, all of the usual rules are confused and confusing.

As I mentioned in a previous post, psychopath and sociopath are often used interchangeably. I tend to use the term sociopath for those whose childhood likely created their pathology, while most researchers believe psychopaths are born with deficits in neural networks or some other physical pathology in the brain. Robert Hare (creator of the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised, the most widely accepted scale) is the expert on this topic.

It's important to note that all psycho- or sociopaths are antisocial personality disordered (APD) and narcissistic, but not all of those with APD or narcissism are psycho- or sociopaths.

Marc Gafni is a sociopath.

Aside from the first two women mentioned at the top (Sara and Judy), Gafni has never been accused of rape, and possibly has not committed an outright rape (by legal definitions). However, he has manipulated women into willingly having sex with him through seduction and, some survivors claim, mind control.

Terry Patten (a former "friend" of Gafni's) comments on the "mind control" aspect of Gafni in his recent blog post.

The egregious violations I saw firsthand were not primarily sexual. What in my experience has been most outrageously diabolical is his unique way of getting inside people’s heads and subtly casting a spell on them, and then using that influence to influence or manipulate others. To be used in this way is a form of abuse. To add sexuality to it, is even more hurtful.

[Emphasis added.]

This skill is common to socio- and psychopaths. It's called cognitive empathy, and it's inherent in the "Dark Triad."

According to Daniel Goleman:

But there can be a dark side to this sort of empathy – in fact, those who fall within the “Dark Triad” – narcissists, Machiavellians, and sociopaths (see Chapter 8 in Social Intelligence) – can be talented in this regard, while having no sympathy whatever for their victims.

Jackson MacKenzie is the author of Psychopath Free: Recovering from Emotionally Abusive Relationships With Narcissists, Sociopaths, and Other Toxic People (2015), and also has a blog called Psychopath Free. In a post on sexual manipulation, she talks about how seduction by a psycho- or sociopath can feel authentic and intimate, until it doesn't.

Here is an excerpt from that article:

Sex with the psychopath seemed perfect at first. They knew exactly where to touch you, what to say, and when to do the right things. You were perfectly compatible in the bedroom, right?

Well, sort of.

Like everything else, the psychopath also mirrored your deepest sexual desires. That’s why it felt so incredibly passionate and flawless when you were together—and that’s why it feels like rape during the identity erosion....

You find yourself in a desperate situation, needing their sexual approval and flattery to feel attractive. They use this to control their targets. They pull away in order to make you seem desperate, needy, and slutty. In the idealize phase, they couldn’t get enough of you. But once they have you hooked, they begin to play mind games. 

What is described here is the idealize phase and the identity erosion phase, two of three stages of socio- and psychopathic seduction. Shahida Arabi (author of The Smart Girl’s Guide to Self-Care) uses slightly different terminology:

• Idealization Phase
• Devaluation Phase
• Discard Phase

Arabi is speaking about narcissists here, a type of personality disorder that is inherent in those with sociopathic or psychopathic pathology.

The idealization phase (which often happens most strongly during the early stages of dating or a relationship) consists of putting you on a pedestal, making you the center of his/her world, being in contact with you frequently, and showering you with flattery and praise. You are convinced that the narcissist can’t live without you and that you’ve met your soulmate. Be wary of: constant texting, shallow flattery and wanting to be around you at all times. This is a technique known as “lovebombing” and it is how most victims get sucked in

The devaluation phase is subsequent to this idealization phase, and this is when you’re left wondering why you were so abruptly thrust off the pedestal. The narcissist will suddenly start to blow hot and cold, criticizing you, covertly and overtly putting you down, comparing you to others, emotionally withdrawing from you and giving you the silent treatment when you’ve failed to meet their “standards.”

The narcissist makes you seem like the needy one as you react to his or her withdrawal and withholding patterns even though the expectations of frequent contact were established early on in the relationship by the narcissist himself.

Part of this process for the predator is that he will try to make you think that if you could stop being so “needy,” “clingy,” or “jealous,” then he will become the loving partner he was in the beginning of the relationship [except, that was all a show].

This is a form of gaslighting he uses against his victims. It's how sociopaths control their victim's "legitimate emotional reactions to their stonewalling, emotional withdrawal, and inconsistency."

During the discard phase, the narcissist abandons his or her victim in the most horrific, demeaning way possible to convince the victim that he or she is worthless. This could range from: leaving the victim for another lover, humiliating the victim in public, being physically aggressive, and a whole range of other demeaning behaviors to communicate to the victim that he or she is no longer important.

Gafni has done this repeatedly over the years. Each of the women who claim he victimized them have experienced this process (including, in part, Judy and Sara, who were raped).

Idealization Phase: Gafni woos them, seduces them, tells them how special or unique they are, then begins a sexual relationship with them. He asks them to respect the "sacredness" of the container in which they come together (read: stay silent). Over time he demands more and more of their time and energy, cutting them off from supports who might question his motives.

Judy Mitzner was quoted in the New York Daily News:

It started with compliments and extra attention, eventually leading to the night when the rabbi appeared in her basement bedroom.

In an earlier statement, from 2004, given to Gary Rosenblatt, editor of Jewish Journal, Judy offered more detail:

Mordechai Winiarz paid attention to me. He told me how intelligent and special I was. I spent many Shabbat lunches with him and his wife feeling like I had finally found a family. I began keeping kosher and abiding by the laws of modesty. Mordechai had awarded me JPSYer of the Year.

In a 2006 article in Forward, it was reported that an Orthodox couple in Boca Raton was interviewed for a Ma’ariv profile on Gafni. The couple claimed that Gafni "sexually preyed on their 23-year-old daughter" while acting as visiting rabbi in Kfar Saba (a city in the Sharon region, of the Center District of Israel). Gafni is alleged to have told her that he wanted to leave his wife and marry her.

“We taped him saying to our daughter, ‘I love you very much. I dream of the day we will be together,’” the couple told Ma’ariv. “When the story became known, Gafni left Kfar Saba.” The couple’s daughter told Ma’ariv that she subsequently found out that Gafni was having similar relationships with other young women.

This is how the sociopath seduces and charms--and Gafni was doing this as a young man. Reports I have heard from survivors over the last decade confirm similar experiences.

Devaluation Phase: Gafni begins to lose interest, insults them if they don't perfectly parrot his "teachings," covertly at first, then overtly, and in front of others. He will lose sexual interest, and at this point the woman will discover (if she has not already), the depth of his porn addiction. The sex will become demeaning, calling the woman a whore and similarly offensive things.

Gafni did this with his 3rd ex-wife, according to a deposition she gave by email in 2006.

While we were being intimate, he would demand that I repeat, "I am a whore." I reluctantly went along with this at first. Eventually I refused to say it. ... Additionally, he viewed pornography on a regular basis; including paying money to have memberships to certain sites. Eventually his computer and email were so full of pornography that he paid tens of hundreds of dollars to get it cleaned, for fear that someone may see it and that he would lose his job.

The sociopath begins to compare her to other women or other "lovers," become emotionally distant, or close her out with silence if she fails to meet his needs or standards. He will make her feel she is needy and irrational. As Arabi points out:

Since the “hot” aspect of this phase relies on intermittent reinforcement in which the narcissist gives you inconsistent spurts of the idealization phase throughout, you become convinced that perhaps you are at fault and you can “control” the narcissist’s reactions.

Arabi goes on to outline the border zone when the victim begins to understand fully who the sociopath is, and likely feels trapped--she realizes now that she has become the victim.

You are mislead into thinking that if you just learn not to be so “needy,” “clingy,” or “jealous,” the narcissist will reward you with the loving behavior he or she demonstrated in the beginning. The narcissist may use these and other similar words to gaslight victims when they react normally to being provoked.

Discard Phase: At this point, he is done and ready to move on (if the woman has not already escaped or started speaking with the "other women" he has been sleeping with). Or he will stop hiding his other sexual relationships and even flaunt them. Often, according to Arabi, the goal for him is to humiliate the woman and make her feel worthless.

Here is how his 3rd ex-wife described her experience of being discarded:

January 2002: Dear God, I’m confused. He has this “teaching partner”. He spends all of his time with her. I don’t like the energy between them. I have pleaded with him to stop working with her. He refuses. Claims I am being jealous, needy. I asked if they are having an affair. He went off into a loud round of denial. Says I am insecure, delusional. Please God, help me stop being so jealous, so sad, so needy.

She was correct--he was sleeping with his teaching partner, as well as students. Then there is this, an example of how the energy suck of narcissists (as mentioned, all sociopaths and psychopaths are narcissists) causes physical illness as well as psychological confusion:

Oxford, May 2003: Please God, help me. I am sick…often. I am having these migraine headaches. My skull is exploding. I can’t breathe. My chest is sealed shut. I am a shell. When I go outside people come up to me rambling about how my husband is sleeping with this woman who comes to his classes. He promises me it’s all lies. All I know is that I am hurting, God. Physically, emotionally, mentally. I am not well. Please God let these headaches end.

Sometimes, the discard phase includes a "smear campaign" in which the sociopath portrays the woman as unstable, needy, or otherwise dysfunctional. Among his support network, this often works, according to Arabi, because his network is other narcissists/sociopaths, people pleasers, empaths, and those who are easily swayed (this is so true of Gafni). Further,

This smear campaign accomplishes three things: 1) it depicts you as the abuser or unstable person and deflects your accusations of abuse, 2) it provokes you, thus proving your instability to others when trying to argue his or her depiction of you, and 3) serves as a hoovering technique in which the narcissist seeks to pull you back into the trauma of the relationship as you struggle to reconcile the rumors about you with who you actually are by speaking out against the accusations.

Gafni has a history of getting others around him, his supporters, to help him defame his accusers, as well as his victims. This is from Russ Cushin, in the Jewish Week, who orchestrated a letter of support (with other former students of Gafni's) for the petition initiated by rabbi David Ingber to stop Gafni from abusing again.

A computer technician, Cashin said that during the time he was in the maggid program he was asked by Gafni to search the Internet for information on two of Gafni’s most outspoken critics. “He wanted to rebuild his reputation and wanted me to dig up material on them to taint their reputation.”

In the prior quote from Arabi, she mentioned hoovering. Hoovering is a term used to describe the way narcissists (and sociopaths) try to suck prior victims back into the trauma bond, and thereby replenish what Andrea Schneider calls their "narcissistic supply." The sociopath will attempt this with feigned offers of an apology or "clearing the air," which Gafni has done with several survivors of his abuse.

From GoodTherapy.org:

When a survivor has gone no-contact—in other words, the survivor has chosen to disengage completely from the abusive person—often the person with narcissism will attempt to see if the door is still open for more narcissistic supply. He or she may “hoover” prior survivors by emailing, texting, phoning, or showing up at a survivor’s workplace or residence under the pretext of apologizing for transgressions, delivering flowers, hitting the reset button, or feigning illness or a need for assistance (money, return of belongings, etc.).

In the 2004 Jewish Journal article cited above, Gafni said he has tried to contact Sara and "heal" the situation:

When told of the woman's comments, Gafni said he would like the situation to be "healed," adding that his attempt to do so several years ago went unheeded.

Here is a more detailed account of how that transpired (quoted from Jewish Survivors of Sexual Violence Speak Out):

Back in 2001, survivor number one received a telephone call from Winiarz/Gafni supporter Naomi Mark, ACSW. Naomi's goal was for a survivor of childhood sexual abuse to meet with her offender. Naomi told this survivor that Marc Winiarz/Gafni wanted to make amends. She told the survivor that Mordechai Winiarz/Gafni had wrote a letter stating: “he thought the survivor was hurting because he ended their relationship instead of marrying her”. He wanted to apologize for "breaking her heart.”

The survivor told Ms. Mark that she would not meet with the man who raped her. The survivor disclosed that she let Naomi Mark know that “the relationship” Winiarz/Gafni was referring to should be called RAPE. A far cry from what Winiarz/Gafni called a “heartache, or a fallen romance.”

Sara was wise not to meet with him. As was Judy, who has refused Gafni's efforts to clear the air (if they were ever really made). The Times of Israel reported:

[Gafni] claimed he has repeatedly tried to contact Mitzner “to create resolution.”

“She has always refused,” Gafni said. “I want reach out right now, as I have many times over the years through third parties, and invite Judy into a mediated conversation where we could transform this from hatred to goodness and truth and beauty.”

Judy's version is a LOT different.

As for his claims that he has repeatedly tried to contact me to “create a resolution” – this is as well entirely false.  I have never heard from him nor would I want to.  He victimized me, and no mediated conversation “could transform this from hatred to goodness and truth and beauty”.

Why would any survivor of an abuser who continues to deny his actions want to sit down with him and "create a resolution"? The ONLY valid resolution is for Gafni to take responsibility for what he has done to so many women.

DARVO: Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender

Not only does the sociopath demean and humiliate the victim, but if she takes her experience public he will malign and discredit the woman and her experience. This has been Marc Gafni's pattern since his very first abuses as a young rabbi.

For example, this is from the 2004 Jewish Journal article on Gafni:

Gafni said that Judy was a troubled, unstable teenager who fabricated the story after he rebuffed her advances.

And this from the recent NYT article:

[Gafni] said that old claims against him were all exaggerated, the result of professional resentment, and that he had been the victim of pseudofeminist witch hunts.

Gafni makes himself the victim of Judy in this quote from The Times of Israel:

“For 31 years she has been encouraged to be a victim. Judy is not acting alone. She is a part of well-organized and funded social group. She received strong social approval and reward for being a hero breaking the silence, which is ironic because she has not stopped talking about this and attacking me for decades in so many different ways, causing me and my children and friends a massive amount of substantive damage and pain,” said Gafni.

There is no "well-organized and funded social group." Judy has been alone in a desert of denials and dismissals. Only other survivors have offered moral support. She says it even more clearly:

I would like to make something PERFECTLY clear I have always acted alone. I have never been part of a “well-organized and funded social group”. Please, if that is the case why am I the one struggling to make ends meet while he sits “looking out of his home office on Monterey Bay”?

In the New York Daily News article, Gafni is quoted again making himself the victim:

“This is sexual McCarthyism,” insisted Gafni, who provided polygraph tests to support his position. “What they’re doing is social media rape.”

And

“What they’re doing is a terrible thing,” Gafni said. “It’s an affront to all true victims. They claim victimhood in a way that’s not right, that’s false.”

This reversal, making him the victim, is a common tactic by perpetrators, part of what Jennifer Freyd at the University of Oregon calls DARVO: Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender.

DARVO refers to a reaction perpetrators of wrong doing, particularly sexual offenders, may display in response to being held accountable for their behavior. DARVO stands for "Deny, Attack, and Reverse Victim and Offender." The perpetrator or offender may Deny the behavior, Attack the individual doing the confronting, and Reverse the roles of Victim and Offender such that the perpetrator assumes the victim role and turns the true victim -- or the whistle blower -- into an alleged offender. This occurs, for instance, when an actually guilty perpetrator assumes the role of "falsely accused" and attacks the accuser's credibility or even blames the accuser of being the perpetrator of a false accusation.

A more nuanced and detailed version of this model appears in Freyd's Blind to Betrayal: Why We Fool Ourselves We Aren't Being Fooled (2013).

Gafni is very proficient with the attack aspect of DARVO. Here are the comments of Susan, the first person Judy told about what Gafni did to her. Susan was a 22-year-old adviser in JPSY-- she believed what Judy told her. From Rosenblatt's 2004 article:

She said that when she took Judy's side, Gafni made harassing phone calls and threats against her.

"He told me I would regret it," Susan said, adding that the rabbi made inappropriate advances to her, as well.

When Judy came forward, his attacks on her were more withering and long-lasting:

Judy said he abused her sexually on two occasions. Even more upsetting, she said, was that afterward, the rabbi tried to convince her the encounter did not happen, and then harassed her for many months. He threatened to keep her out of Jewish schools (she was seeking to transfer from public school to a yeshiva), called her home at all hours of the night and then hung up, mailed pictures to her home of naked men and had her followed.

Trying to convince her that what she experienced never happened is gaslighting. From Wikipedia:

Gaslighting is a form of mental abuse in which information is twisted or spun, selectively omitted to favor the abuser, or false information is presented with the intent of making victims doubt their own memory, perception, and sanity.

Gafni always reverses the victim-offender dynamic. He accused Judy of being "highly initiatory" in the NYT follow-up story in Tablet. He went further in the article in the New York Daily News:

Gafni charged that Mitzner spun her story from “20 minutes of fooling around” — and claims he spurned her invitation to sleep together.

“A one-time mistake,” he claimed. “There’s a difference between a mistake and predatory (behavior).”

So being a 26-year-old rabbi who fondles a 16-year-old who is crying and begging him to stop is "one-time mistake," a "mistake" that actually happened twice, with him crawling naked into her bed, and with him penetrating her with his fingers? 

He reversed the offender-victim dynamic with his 3rd ex-wife, as well, as she detailed in the 2006 email deposition:

If I didn't agree with him on something then he would burst into a rage and tell me how stupid I was. But more than that, he would tell me how unloving, insensitive and selfish I was. Convincing me that I was the evil, selfish, unloving one was one of his most powerful tools of manipulation.

Conclusions

For those people who have wondered why more of Gafni's victims have not come forward, this post should have explained it for you. If not, then I failed to fully convey how difficult Gafni can make life for those who do come forward.

Gafni's retaliations can be difficult. I have been told by more than survivor that Gafni keeps files on anyone he suspects he might have to discredit, collecting anything he can to make the person look "unstable" or unreliable.

He also engages in DARVO with every accuser. He denies that it happened, or that he did anything wrong. He attacks the accuser and tries to discredit her (or him), or he has his supporters attack so that he can appear to take the "high ground." And if those two efforts fail, he reverses the offender (him) and the victim, and he often does it very publicly, such as in interviews.

Then there are the statistics, cited above, showing that women who know their perpetrators are much less likely to report than if they do not know the perpetrator.

Considering all of this, it's amazing that any of the survivors have come forward.

REFERENCES

All sources for quotes are linked.

These statistical references are the exception:

1. U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics, M. Planty and L. Langton, “Female Victims of Sexual Violence, 1994-2010,” 2013

2. Wolitzky-Taylor et al, “Is Reporting of Rape on the Rise? A Comparison of Women with Reported Versus Unreported Rape Experiences in the National Women’s Study-Replication,” 2010

3. U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics, T. Hart and C. Rennison, “Reporting Crime to the Police, 1992-2000,” 2003

4. D. Kilpatrick et al., “Drug-facilitated, Incapacitated, and Forcible Rape: A National Study,” 2007;

Sexual Exploitation - Do You Know the Signs? (Part One, the Victims)

In my role as a sexual trauma therapist, I counsel men and women who are survivors of sexual abuse, molestation, assault, and exploitation. Their lives and their stories have taught me a lot about perpetrators.

For those who may wonder why I keep getting involved in trying to stop Marc Gafni's sexually exploitative "relationships" with students, this is part of the reason.

As much I have learned in the time I have worked with these men and women, I still do not fully understand the mechanisms in them that allows the perpetrator to select them as targets. But it seldom fails that if you put a male predator into a room with 100 women, he find the one or two women who he can prey upon. [Yes, I am using loaded language - it's appropriate to what is being discussed.]

I want to use some of the information I have found over the past few years to help others understand how and why Gafni behaves in this way, how and why he is able to target women, and how and why these women willingly entered in relationships with him.

This is part one, and here I focus on those who are victimized. In part two, I will look at the traits most common to predators. In both cases, I hope to offer a perspective informed by psychology and my belief that people are not inherently "bad" but, rather, act in ways we define as bad as a response to their wounding. This is not an attempt to deny responsibility (in predator or prey), but to offer explanations.


Part One: Beginning with the experience of the women

It's much easier for most of us to feel the suffering of the women in these situations (or men) than it is to find compassion for the predator/perpetrator. So let's begin with the easy piece - the experience of the women, including identifying when one is engaged in that type of dysfunction.

But we begin with a look at how widespread an issue this is and how it tends to play out in the broader sense in relationships involving power imbalances.

Here is the first big piece of the puzzle, courtesy of Joel Friedman and Marcia Mobilia Boumil, in Betrayal of trust: Sex and power in professional relationships.

It is about power and exploitation. It is about what happens when an unethical professional encounters a psychologically vulnerable patient, client, student, or other and decides to use her trust in him, primarily engendered by his power and position, to his own advantage—with little regard to the consequences for her. It is about the nature of these professionals who deceive themselves and those who rely on them, and the contexts which provide fertile ground for this deception to occur.

According to these authors, there are two basic ways that women (the book looks primarily at male predators, but also acknowledges that there are women doing this as well, although there is far less research on that variation) become "victims" of these predators (and I am not a fan of the word "victim," but it probably is the closest word to the actual situation for most of these women):

In the first, a victim is led to believe that this is an opportunity to share in an intimate relationship with a man whom, because of his power and position, she has come to respect, trust, and admire. Often he presents himself as a kind and caring professional, attentive to the needs of an unsuspecting female client, patient, or student and seeking to be helpful in whatever way his profession offers. At the same time, he is powerful and revered, a figure whose judgment one might otherwise never question. Often a victim becomes mesmerized by the thought that such an awesome person is interested, really interested, in her!


So what is wrong with that? In the great majority of cases, the intentions of the professional who approaches his clients, patients, students, and others in this manner are insincere. They are not based upon genuine interest in the individual; they are based upon the man's desire to use the relationship for his own sexual gratification: in short, to "exploit" her. And that's what's wrong. (p. 2)

The authors attribute awareness and intention here that I am not sure exists in some cases, but I will speak more on this in part two. And here is the other form this situation often takes:

In the second situation, the professional may or may not purport to have a genuine interest in his victim, but instead uses the professional relationship to coerce her, often subtly, to participate in a relationship with him. In these cases, the victim "consents" to the relationship, but her consent stems from fear that the professional services will be terminated if she does not acquiesce to his sexual desire. ....

In most cases the sexual relationship that results is short-lived; it lasts until the professional man gets what he wants from it or gets tired of it, and then it ends abruptly. The incidence of this form of professional misconduct is alarming, and the consequences to the victims are often tragic. (p. 2-3)

From the accounts of all of the women I have spoken with, Gafni tends to behave more in line with the first model - he seems to need the seduction - he seems to need the power that he gets with the seduction. Gafni even goes so far as to justify his behavior by saying that he is a teacher who has the development and discernment to hold a postconventional container in relationship with multiple women simultaneously. The evidence suggests otherwise.

Unrelatedly, Gafni's use of integral language in his teaching, which is a big part of his seduction, reminds me of something Robert Augustus Masters said on his Facebook page:

Employing integral terminology in one's communication is very different than communicating integrally.

That is exactly what it feels like each time I read or listen to Gafni - a lot of pretty, neat sounding words and a whole lot of nothing beneath - no real communication, only smoke and mirrors. But he is skillful in using those tricks to seduce women and men (he uses the same approaches to court the support of those with money and power).

But it never is so easy as it sounds. There is nothing illegal about Gafni's actions - unethical? yes; illegal? no. Still, the situation so often puts the student at such a disadvantage that most organizations have created an ethics code forbidding such relationships.

On one side of the equation are two adults who may desire a consensual sexual relationship with one another. The law views this as a fundamental right of privacy and is loath to interfere with people engaging in mutually agreeable conduct with one another (so long as it is neither illegal nor immoral). Indeed, the law strongly protects this constitutional provision that people have a right to freedom of association. Yet on the other side of the equation is the professions' recognition that their members, merely by virtue of their power and position, can exert undue influence over the individuals they serve. What appears to be a consensual relationship is so fraught with an inherent imbalance of power and opportunity for undue influence that it can cause patient, clients, and students seemingly voluntarily to consent to such relationships without knowing that they are actually being exploited. And when the relationship runs its course and the professional moves on to someone else, the effects on the exploited individual are often so devastating that the law and the professions themselves are finding it necessary to step in and take responsibility: in short, preventing unsuspecting individuals from becoming victims of this type of abuse. (p. 3-4)

Of all the professions implicated in these forms of abuse and exploitation, the mental health field has been the most proactive and has established the best boundaries for behavior by its practitioners. This is largely related to the fact that mental health professionals (of whatever form - psychologists, psychiatrists, counselors, social workers, and so on) are tasked with identifying and knowing the weaknesses and wounding of their clients, which makes clients easy prey for sexual predators.

The reason that sexual exploitation is so significant in mental health is well understood. The mental health professional is engaged to analyze, understand, and influence the patient's psychological and emotional state. The therapist's work requires that he act so as to elicit and sustain a deep sense of trust from his patient. If he is successful, this results in her willingness to expose to him psychological weaknesses and points of vulnerability.
__

This scenario sets up a clear and direct opportunity for the mental health professional, who is often dealing with emotionally needy patients, to use the information that he has gathered during the therapy to manipulate them through their vulnerabilities: if he believes that a victim is insecure, he can become the perfect father; if he believes that she has poor self-esteem, he can promote a better self-image. The feelings of intimacy and attraction, which have physical as well as emotional components, are encouraged to develop during the therapy. They are supposed to be used as part of the healing process. If, instead, they are used to establish a sexual relationship, whether or not the therapist has a malicious motive, the harm that can be caused is often devastating.(p. 4)

Some estimates place the abuse rate in the mental health field at about 10-12 % (p. 10).

The only other profession I can think of that involves the same trust and vulnerability as the mental health profession is the role of spiritual adviser, director, teacher, or guru - no other role outside of mental health requires trust and vulnerability to the same degree.

How it begins

There are always signs of impending dysfunction in these relationships, but too few women know the signs or are aware enough to act on them:

All too often victims of sexual exploitation report that they noticed early on in the professional relationship that something about the relationship did not seem right. Either the professional seemed distracted from the purpose of the relationship or he seemed to take an unusual interest in them without any real basis for doing so. Many victims ignore these early indications, either attributing their suspicions to their own hypersensitivity or perhaps even being flattered by the extra attention. But in many cases it is just these early indications, when recognized, that can prevent an abusive situation from developing.

The first important step in recognizing activity that may lead to sexual abuse is being aware of those intuitive feelings that indicate an impending boundary violation. These are the early warning signs or "red flags" that signal that a bad situation may be brewing. In fact, intuition or instinct is one of the most effective tools for sensing what is going on in the early stages of sexual exploitation. For people who are in turmoil, confused, or frightened, or those who are inexperienced, trusting one's own instincts is a difficult task. In some cases it is this very inability to rely on oneself that has brought about the need for professional assistance. Maybe there's a crisis: the individual is emotionally distraught, lacks knowledge, or perhaps is just not confident about her own capacity to understand what is going on. Perhaps the possibility of being exploited by a professional is just so foreign a notion that it never even enters her mind. Indeed, it is those very people who are least able to call upon or trust their own instincts who become vulnerable to the judgments, opinions, influence, and coercion of people who try or pretend to help. Finally, sometimes it is a student who is frightened, inexperienced, immature, or perhaps overly ambitious who comes under the influence of an exploitative teacher. On the surface, he appears to be concerned, caring, knowledgeable, and a reputable authority who can be trusted. In short, sexual exploitation can occur under the most unassuming circumstances and anyone can become a victim. (Friedman & Boumil, p. 48-49)

The student, the client, the devotee is always in the position of trusting the professional. But he is driven by other needs than simply teaching or helping. In the language of the Voice Dialogue model, it is a matter of subpersonalities interacting, generally below the level of awareness (although some predators are certainly aware of their actions).

Hal and Sidra Stone talk about relationships as the manifestation of inner parts filling each other's needs. Here is a basic explanation of the human bonding patterns in male-female relationships:

This is their diagram, sort of:

     Mother . . . . .[the woman]. . . . Daughter
     Son . . . . . . . [the man] . . . . . . Father

Here is their explanation:

In this diagram we see the basic male-female bonding pattern. The mother side of the woman is bonded to the son side of the man (the M-S axis), and the father side of the man is bonded to the daughter side of the woman (the F-D axis). This diagram illustrates the basic bonding pattern that exists in all male and female relationships before the development of any kind of awareness. It is a normal and natural process. It cannot be eliminated, nor would eliminating it be desirable; these bonding patterns contain much life and vitality. They often provide warmth and nurturing. The problem is that without awareness they are very likely to turn negative. In addition, the two people miss what is possible in the interaction of two aware egos.

Once we get involved (attraction is enough involvement), the basic patterns gets layered very quickly and very complexly. In the exploitive bonding pattern, the child of the male needs something he never received as a child, and the child in the female is also wounded in some way.

In the male, there is some form of protector part that tries to keep the wounded child safe and has found ways to do so that are effective but are not healthy for other people in his life. For the predator, it is seduction and romance/sex that makes the child feel loved and desired, which is what he craves.

In the woman, the child part needs to be seen and appreciated, needs to be seduced and seen as attractive. She may look for this need to be filled in ways that are not healthy. She may also have a part that has learned that seduction is a way to meet her needs.

When these two get together, from the outside it looks like mutual seduction and consent. But neither person is really fully aware of what the shadow parts of their personality are doing, nor are they aware of the dysfunction inherent in the relationship they are building.

This is in large part why it feels unconscionable to me that Gafni be allowed to continue in his current role, especially taking private students. He is acting from childish needs and presenting a supposed "integral" explanation - it's an individual example of the classic pre/trans fallacy that Ken Wilber has been teaching about for two decades or so.

More importantly, since Gafni is teaching about his own version of "sacred sexuality," the temptation for teacher and student to act out the teachings is considerable. We already know that Gafni will do this and that he feels justified in doing so because of his self-professed spiritual development.  Likewise, we also know that he lacks discernment in picking women who are capable of "holding the container." Generally, these women would have nothing to do with a (pre?)conventional teacher such as himself, unless they also have some form of wounding.

But the women he targets DO have some wounding or vulnerability that he can sense, and goes to great lengths to feel the situation out before making his move. He feels he is above such conventional ethics codes that might prohibit his behavior. Yet they were designed specifically for people like him.

Are we really willing to believe that this man who has been involved in sex scandals his whole life as a spiritual man (thirty years or more now) is capable of having healthy relationships of any kind? After three divorces and the rumored imminent end to a relationship with the mother of his youngest child? Are we really to believe that he is going to check in with Ken Wilber and whoever else is supposed to monitor him when he wants to bed a student? Not likely.

Betrayal bonds and trauma bonds

Patrick Carnes has written a lot about sex addiction and the women who get involved with and stay involved with these men (and again, the majority of offenders are men, although women seem to be working hard to catch up). The same material applies to men who exploit their positions of power in relationships.

In fact, most men who are exploitive also engage in other forms of dysfunctional sexuality - porn addiction is the most common comorbid behavior.

Carnes tends to refer to the relational bonding between a predator and prey as trauma bonds or as betrayal bonds (The Betrayal Bond: Breaking Free of Exploitive Relationships). These are some of the qualifiers for the trauma bond, or betrayal bond.

With denial and repression in place, all the trauma solutions are available in the service of the trauma bond. Reactivity, arousal, blocking, splitting, abstinence, shame and trauma repetition can be accomplished in the context of the relationship. 

• Reactivity comes with constant chaos, involvement and betrayal. There is always something to induce the cycles of old to activate the victim, victimizer and rescuer scenarios. 

• Arousal surges in the relationship with high risk, intensity and sometimes violent sex. Anger, fear and anxiety create a neurochemical cascade that makes sane relationships boring. 

• Blocking occurs when there is the honeymoon or “I have pushed you too far” phase. Seductive and pleasing efforts to “make up for it” are calming and provide temporary relief. 

• Splitting happens when the victim dissociates from the chaos or from obsessing about the partner. Internal dialogues with your partner would be an example. 

• Abstinence manifests in many ways, including the obvious: staying in the relationship without needs being met, or worse, living in deprivation because the chaos prevents you from taking care of yourself, so martyrdom seems functional. 

• Shame appears in the form of despair about yourself, in feeling defective because the victim has absorbed the shame of the perpetrator (carried shame), and in believing in your unworthiness. 

• Repetition cycles the “working model” of how relationships should work over and over again. Each recycle repeats the victimization of the past. 

In short, you have an addictive relationship that results in compulsive involvement and compulsive relationship patterns. For Tom, being with Barbara put in place all the paths that people use addictively. (Carnes, 2010, Kindle Locations 2011-2029).

In an article simply titled Trauma Bonds, Carnes identifies the signs to look for in identifying the presence of a trauma bond:

Exploitive relationships create trauma bonds. These occur when a victim bonds with someone who is destructive to them. Similarly, adult survivors of abusive and dysfunctional families struggle with bonds that are rooted in their own trauma experiences. To be loyal to that which does not work - or worse, to a person who is toxic, exploitive, or destructive to the client, is a form of insanity.

A number of signs exist for the presence of a betrayal bond:

1. When everyone around the client is having negative reactions so strong the client is covering up, defending, or explaining a relationship.
2. When there is a constant pattern of non-performance and the client continues to expect them to follow through anyway.
3. When there are repetitive, destructive fights that are no win for anybody.
4. When others are horrified by something that has happened to the client and the client isn’t.
5. When the client obsesses about showing someone that they are wrong about the abuse, their relationship, or their treatment of the client.
6. When the client feels loyal to someone even though the client harbors secrets that are damaging to others.
7. When the client moves closer to someone who is destructive with the desire of converting them to a non-abuser.
8. When someone’s talents, charisma, or contributions causes the client to overlook destructive, exploitive, or degrading acts.
9. When the client cannot detach from someone even though the client does not trust, like or care for the person.
10. When the client misses a relationship even to the point of nostalgia and longing that was so awful it almost destroyed the client.
11. When extraordinary demands are placed on the client to measure up as a way to cover up exploitation of the client.
12. When the client keeps secret someone’s destructive behavior because of all of the good they have done or the importance of their position or career.
13. When the history of their relationship is about contracts or promises that have been broken, which the client are asked to overlook.

They all involve exploitation of trust or power or both. They all can result in a bond with a person who is dangerous and exploitive. Signs of betrayal bonding include misplaced loyalty, inability to detach, and self-destructive denial. Professional therapists can be so focused on their client’s woundedness, they will overlook the trauma bonds that may remain. 

There are also a variety of self-tests or inventories one can take to identify whether one is involved in an abusive and/or exploitive relationship. Here is one from Carnes, presented by Insideout Living, Inc.:

Traumatic Bonding Self Test 

By Patrick Carnes, Ph.D.

The following are a series of statements which describe traumatic bonding in which a person bonds on the basis of betrayal. The result is what we call a "betrayal bond". Check each "Yes" response as appropriate.

1) Do you obsess about people who have hurt you even through they are long gone?
YES  NO

2) Do you continue to seek contact with people whom you know will cause you further pain?
YES  NO

3) Do you go "overboard" to help people who have been destructive to you?
YES  NO

4) Do you continue to be a "team" member when obviously things are becoming destructive?
YES  NO

5) Do you continue attempts to get people to like you who are clearly using you?
YES  NO

6) Do you trust people again and again who are proven to be unreliable?
YES  NO

7) Are you unable to retreat from unhealthy relationships?
YES  NO

8) Do you try to be understood by those who clearly do not care?
YES  NO

9) Do you choose to stay in conflict with others when it would cost you nothing to walk away?
YES  NO

10) Do you persist in trying to convince people that there is a problem and they are not willing to listen?
YES  NO

11) Are you loyal to people who have betrayed you?
YES  NO

12) Do you attract untrustworthy people?
YES  NO

13) Have you kept damaging secrets about exploitation or abuse?
YES  NO

14) Do you continue contact with an abuser who acknowledges no responsibility?
YES  NO

15) Do you find yourself covering up, defending, or explaining a relationship?
YES  NO

16) When there is a constant pattern of non-performance in a relationship, do you continue to expect them to follow through anyway?
YES  NO

17) Do you have repetitive, destructive fights that are no win for anybody?
YES  NO

18) Do you find that others are horrified by something that has happened to you and you are not?
YES  NO

19) Do you obsess about showing someone that they are wrong about you, your relationship, or their treatment of you?
YES  NO

20) Do you feel stuck because you know what the other is doing is destructive, but you believe you cannot do anything about it?
YES  NO

21) Do you feel loyal to someone even though you harbor secrets that are damaging to others?
YES  NO

22) Do you move closer to someone you know is destructive to you even though you do not trust, like or care for the person?
YES  NO

23) Does someone's talents, charisma, or contributions cause you to overlook destructive, exploitive, or degrading acts?
YES  NO

24) Do you find you cannot detach from someone even though you do not trust, like or care for the person?
YES  NO

25) Do you find yourself missing a relationship, even to the point of nostalgia and longing, that was so awful it almost destroyed you?
YES  NO

26) Are extraordinary demands placed on you to measure up as a way to cover up exploitation?
YES  NO

27) Do you keep secret someone's destructive behavior because of all of the good they have done or the importance of their position or career?
YES  NO

28) Does your relationship have contacts or promises that have been broken which you are asked to overlook?
YES  NO

29) Are you attracted to "dangerous" people?
YES  NO

30) Do you stay in a relationship longer than you should?
YES  NO

If you can answer yes to several of these questions, you may want to reconsider the relationship you are in and begin to talk to someone who understands what may be happening to you.

Finally, a little more from Carnes on trauma bonds and disrupting trauma bonds:

TRAUMA BONDS STRENGTHEN WHEN . . .

1. trauma cycles are repeated
2. the victim believes in his or her uniqueness
3. the victim mistakes intensity for intimacy
4. the trauma endures over time
5. there are increasing amounts of fear
6. the fear-induced neurochemical reactions occur earlier in life and affect the organic development of the brain
7. the trauma is preceded by earlier victimization
8. the victim is surrounded by reactivity and extreme responses
9. the betrayal of power relationships is greater
10. the betrayal of trusted relationships is greater

TRAUMA BONDS ARE DISRUPTED WHEN . . .

1. healthy bonds are available
2. a group or community can debrief or re-role the victim
3. the victim can identify
   (a) cycles of abuse
   (b) roles of victim, victimizer, and rescuer
4. the victim learns
   (a) how to psychologically distance from intensity
   (b) boundary-setting strategies
5. metaphors (images) exist for the victim to use in the moment
6. the victim can reframe interactions of trauma
7. the victim understands the role of carried shame
8. the victim accepts trauma bond’s systematic nature (avoiding blame)

~ Adapted from Patrick J. Carnes

These bonds can be disrupted - and the best way to do so is to break the silence - seek support and counseling - or just simply walk away.

Most predators will shame you and blame you and make it all your fault - don't listen. That is how he tries to control the situation.

Sometimes, the predator will erupt into a narcissistic rage, fully convinced that it is his right to be sexual with whomever he desires, and direct that rage at you for violating his "trust." He will remain convinced that he has done nothing wrong and is being betrayed by the woman/women involved.

But this is his wounding - and it is from his wounding that these behaviors develop. More on that in the next installment.