Truethought, criminal thinking, and sexual abuse

Truethought is an organization which sells workbooks to criminal justice agencies and individuals on the premise that criminal thinking errors are not only present in criminals, but present in people who do not break the law, but have problems in other areas of their lives. Criminal Thinking Errors, used by Dr. Stanton Samenow to understand why imprisoned convicts show less progress in mental health groups in others, are patterns of thinking which enable criminals to justify their actions. Two Beloit, WI therapists, Ron Fawcett and Dave Koerner, reduced the 50 thinking errors to 10 categories of errors, and expanded the application beyound the criminal justice system. Fawcett and Koerner noticed that thinking errors also apply to law-abiding, but irresponsible and manipulative people. The name was changed from Criminal to Corrective Thinking in response.

The Truethought books go by the premise that there is a continuum of thinking from responsible to irresponsible to “arrestable” to “extreme” criminal. Extreme criminals show a variety of thinking errors which they use to justify felon criminality.

The sole difference between the irresponsible thinker and the criminal thinker, according to Truethought, is boundaries. Extreme criminals have no boundaries, but will do what they want. Arrestable criminals recognize prison as a boundary, and irresponsible non-criminals will not cross the line separating him (or her) from jail, but all can wreak havoc within their “comfort” levels.

Truethought’s premise is that in non-criminal situations, and in personal/professional lives (if any), there is no difference between the criminal and the irresponsible thinker except frequency of excuses for not taking responsibility.

So, when the Truethought worldview is applied to sexually relationships, one can easily see similarities between dysfunctional adult “relationships” and teacher/student sex – because the same thought processes operate in criminals and irresponsible people, but to different extents. An “extreme” criminal will sexually abuse a 10-year old boy and call it a “relationship,” and an “arrestable” criminal will deal with people who are barely under the AOC. An irresponsible person will never target those under 18, but manipulate someone over 18 into a “relationship” which only suits his or her needs.

The implications for sexually exploitative relationships go like this: Since the same dynamics exist in the manipulative partner and the sexual abuser, a manipulative relationship should run on the same dynamics and be based on the same motives at the molester of teens. Therefore, 30 & 14 and a manipulative 30 & 28 are not as far off as people think. It also means that insights into the former may provide insights into the latter.

The implication for parents is that not only should their minor kids be watched, but that with half of 20-somethings living at home, to watch their young adult's friends and partners very closely even after they graduate from college. If there is a 1 in 4 chance of your grown child being perpertrated on, then there needs to be an extra pair (or 2 pairs of) eyes watching the relationship. Your child may be in their 20s or even 30s, but you have been there 20 to 30 years longer, and you know that there are predators who target adults, particularly adult females. A watchful parent can spot an abusive partner before he (or she) gets to their grown, but inexperienced child.