The following suggested policy on how to deal with abuse disclosed at meetings first appeared in the ESSAY in October 1990. It is reprinted here at the request of the Delegates and Trustees, who discussed this and related issues at the General Delegate Assembly meeting in St. Louis, on July 7. Delegates discussed the question of adding guidance to the meeting format on shares “that refer to crimes punishable by law” after calls for a policy stand from various regions around the country. After a lengthy discussion, however, the Delegates voted to table a motion to add to the meeting format. Instead, they recommend that members should first be made aware of the issue, that the issue and the underlying spiritual principles be discussed at the group and Intergroup levels, and that relevant findings and concerns be shared with the Fellowship at large through the ESSAY.

Suggested Guidelines for Developing Policy in Response to Abuse Disclosed in SA Meetings

Originally published in ESSAY, October 1990

We in SA should be guided by the highest moral, ethical, and spiritual principles in such a matter. It is better for me to suffer than inflict my harm on others by covering over my wrong. Those who do not recover “are incapable of grasping and developing a manner of living which demands rigorous honesty.” (Chapter 5, AA Big Book) To cover and hide our wrongs is to deny ourselves the healing light of God and the fellowship.

If such an action is tolerated by the group and the member is unwilling to take responsibility for his/her own actions and turn themselves in, that abuse stays in the group. Its poison and evil invisibly affect the spiritual quality of meetings. Also, the poison stays within the individual. Without intervening on himself, the member seals himself into a mind-set that lets him believe he can get away with it, whereas the Program teaches us that we can’t get away with anything we do in harming others.

If no intervention is made on the member, his/her malady will continue to progress. And unwittingly, we as other members keep supporting his illness and become co-perpetrators, enabling his and other abuses. Our experience shows that regardless of the SA member involved, this malady of ours does progress. There is no recovery without sobriety. Without amending such an act, I shut out God, sobriety, and recovery and confirm myself in self-blindness. “I’m as sick as my secrets.”

I must put myself in the shoes of the victim also. It is difficult for us as sexaholics to see the reality of our evil from the victim’s point of view. The law of love is our example here: Do to others what we would have them do to us. I have to look into that terrified face and imagine that’s me as a child being victimized sexually. If I could only have received the right kind of help after being victimized, it might have helped defuse my trauma. Without intervention, I as a victim seal it over, and if a child, begin to think there’s something wrong with me. We can do something to help the victim!

This kind of firm, clear position taken by a group has the effect of deterrence. This is “tough love.” It makes for a no-nonsense Program that commands the respect of the erring member, ourselves, and outside authorities. We do not coddle or enable perpetrators!

We can assume that when a person tells on themselves in a meeting they are in their own way asking for help. So, how can we help? We can help them cover their wrong—and bear the consequences ourselves—or we can help them face and deal with it responsibly, as we amend all wrongs in the Program.

Suggested Policy

(1) Develop a climate and ongoing tradition of personal accountability and responsibility in meetings based on true recovery and closeness of fellowship. Current models would seem to include SA groups effectively using the concept of “group sponsorship.”

(2) When a person in SA tells of having currently victimized someone sexually or such information is disclosed, two or more SA members will get with the person, make sure of the facts, and support that member into assuming responsibility for and amending their actions. In appropriate cases, this will mean the person turn himself or herself in. The intervening members and the group will continue supporting the person all the way, through to victory, healing, and recovery. SA members have been known to be this responsible. It is the honorable Program way.

(3) The erring member and their SA group will also take appropriate steps to try to amend any trauma or damage done to the victim.

(4) If the member will not turn themselves in, the concerned members will, by group conscience, try again, as a group, to get them to turn themselves in. If they fail in this, they can seek an appropriate non-SA third party to intervene. In one case in SA, a priest agreed to take the necessary actions.

(5) In the case where a member tells us they are about to victimize someone, or there is a good chance of that happening, the group of concerned members will intervene in some appropriate way to help prevent it and help the member come through to victory and healing. They advise the member that if he or she does the wrong, they will be turned in.

(6) In cases where the member is intransigent, refusing and thwarting all intervention of the group or others, the member should be asked to leave SA until he or she has a change of attitude. Individual SA members would then be free to act as their conscience directed to prevent further victimization. Other SA groups the person might join can be advised of the problem.