This will be an area where you would be best served by reading books by experts, actual experts with credentials and research experience, and research articles. Having worked in this field, this...
This will be an area where you would be best served by reading books by experts, actual experts with credentials and research experience, and research articles. Having worked in this field, this is one of those things I have zero interest in discussing in a forum. But perhaps there are others here with that sort of professional or research experience.
Edit:
Folks in the US who have experienced any sexual violence can reach the RAINN hotline at 800-656-4643
And their online or WhatsApp chat via their website
I think this is a very reductive stance to take. The prevailing theory in Psychiatry as far as I know is generally that there is not necessarily one cause of any specific disorder, but that a...
I think this is a very reductive stance to take. The prevailing theory in Psychiatry as far as I know is generally that there is not necessarily one cause of any specific disorder, but that a variety of influences can be involved, such as genetic and epigenetic traits, childhood experiences, developmental differences, hormonal issues, differences in brain structure, medical events, etc. I think that approaching this more from a discovery standpoint - "what causes [x]" instead of "is [x] caused by one specific issue" will have more benefits in your search.
With as much respect as I can, I would recommend being very, very careful about discussion on this topic, and about having a topic like this be the first topic you jump into for discussion on a new site. I'm going to flag the discussion for @Deimos to have a look at and to consider for locking. I'm not sure that this is one of the best topics for discussion.
This is a topic I’m curious to see discussed, as it intersects my interests around neuroscience, psychology, philosophy, and justice. It is one of the last areas that receives absolutely zero...
This is a topic I’m curious to see discussed, as it intersects my interests around neuroscience, psychology, philosophy, and justice.
It is one of the last areas that receives absolutely zero sympathy from anyone across the entire political spectrum and something that people are content to label simply as “evil” in some medieval manner, yet it exists and must have a biological basis. Our understanding it so we can treat or manage it seems logical.
There is a possibility that this is an alt account from a longer standing community member due to the sensitivity of the topic, but yes I welcome monitoring from admin.
There is a possibility that this is an alt account from a longer standing community member due to the sensitivity of the topic, but yes I welcome monitoring from admin.
Not sure how you can have a constructive conversation about a niche, sensitive, and triggering topic in general discussion site. This sort of topic needs significant oversight and realtime...
Not sure how you can have a constructive conversation about a niche, sensitive, and triggering topic in general discussion site. This sort of topic needs significant oversight and realtime moderation as it can quickly devolve into misinformation, fights, etc.
If it was more of a time boxed discussion with vetted experts in the field, sure, like an ama. But as a general discussion, no. I'm with @aphoenix, this should be locked.
You're asking a factual question, one which most people here are not capable of answering nor do they have the educational or employment background to discuss. Unless I'm about to be very...
You're asking a factual question, one which most people here are not capable of answering nor do they have the educational or employment background to discuss. Unless I'm about to be very surprised about many more people here than I suspect
There's no benefit to a bunch of non-psychiatrist/psychologists/mental health practitioners in this specific field of expertise discussing their feelings on the matter.
Silence would in fact cause less harm than you've already done in the thread by your reply misattributing an argument.
Reread NotaFae's comment. They are saying the harm was caused by you misattributing the argument earlier in the thread, not raising the question. This is the second time you have seemingly not...
Reread NotaFae's comment. They are saying the harm was caused by you misattributing the argument earlier in the thread, not raising the question. This is the second time you have seemingly not taken the effort to read and understand in the thread, and that does not make for a productive or useful conversation.
Once again you've falsely misattributed and misunderstood a point. Plenty of people feel confident on a topic that are not experts. As you have demonstrated.
Once again you've falsely misattributed and misunderstood a point.
Plenty of people feel confident on a topic that are not experts. As you have demonstrated.
I find the extreme stigmatism of this topic (to the point where even innocuously asking for studies would get threatened with being shut down from further discussion) kind of fascinating from a...
I find the extreme stigmatism of this topic (to the point where even innocuously asking for studies would get threatened with being shut down from further discussion) kind of fascinating from a phenomenological perspective. I completely understand (and share) the opinion that the subject matter describes a disorder that could lead to reprehensible criminal acts... but I mean I also find serial murdering reprehensible, but I don't think expressing an interest in discussing (or consuming research, podcasts, documentaries, or even fictional Netflix series about) serial murderers would typically be viewed in a similar light.
General discussion about suicide in uncontrolled environments have been linked to people attempting suicide. I think it would be a travesty if a similar discussion on paedophilia here was linked...
General discussion about suicide in uncontrolled environments have been linked to people attempting suicide. I think it would be a travesty if a similar discussion on paedophilia here was linked to a person acting on their impulse which is why sensitive topics like this should be closely monitored and moderated.
I think a better topic would be do we want to have these sorts of discussion on tildes and if so, how can they be done in manner that is safe for all members of the community. A survivor of childhood sexual abuse might want to avoid or be informed how to hide this topic prior to going to the site
100% agree. Especially after reading more of the discussion taking place in this thread. I was just wondering at why similar discussions around the (arguably worse) crime of murder doesn't seem to...
100% agree. Especially after reading more of the discussion taking place in this thread.
I was just wondering at why similar discussions around the (arguably worse) crime of murder doesn't seem to suffer a similar stigmatism. But after mulling it over I thought of something that maybe makes some sense--the direct victims of murder aren't around anymore to relive their trauma, which might lead to people perceiving it as less taboo to talk about more casually.
I think that it's possible to have nuanced, thoughtful discussions on this topic, but very difficult, especially on this type of public forum. OP's blasé approach throughout this post and its...
I think that it's possible to have nuanced, thoughtful discussions on this topic, but very difficult, especially on this type of public forum. OP's blasé approach throughout this post and its comments is not, imo, conducive to the kind of constructive, nuanced discussion that would be ideal.
This is one case where I bemoan the lack of a downvote on Tildes. While I do not think the topic was started maliciously, I do not believe this is a discussion that should be welcome on the site....
This is one case where I bemoan the lack of a downvote on Tildes.
While I do not think the topic was started maliciously, I do not believe this is a discussion that should be welcome on the site. Or at a minimum, not this discussion — after seeing a few interactions here.
This is not the only such topic that starts out being super-sensitive, with extreme care needed to handle it well, but it is certainly one that requires it. And, alas, such care has not been taken.
In cases where a topic is not interesting to me, or something I do not wish to participate in but believe others should, I can certainly hide/ignore the topic. And I can do that here, but believe that this topic rises to the level of speaking out against it.
I do not think this topic is a valuable contribution to the Tildes community.
I do not mean to say anything negative about anyone; but I do mean to say that I do not think this topic belongs on Tildes - not this post, at least.
And I feel strongly enough to make this comment saying so.
Scientifically speaking, even if we are able to prove that 100% of current cases result from remembered or repressed childhood sexual trauma, that is still a correlation of 1, and does not...
Scientifically speaking, even if we are able to prove that 100% of current cases result from remembered or repressed childhood sexual trauma, that is still a correlation of 1, and does not establish the mechanism, ie, cause, right?
I would also provide this caution: when society becomes convinced that there is causal relationship when there is only correlation, it tends to lead to inhumane treatment of others. "Blame the parents", witch hunt for the perpetrators, subjecting the sufferer to endless rounds of therapy until the memory is un-repressed even when there isn't one. In the most extreme case conceivable: euthanize child victims and mandate state monitoring of adult victims. Which is absolutely horrific and should never be but I do not underestimate what ultra conservative societies are willing to do.
The sufferers have nothing to gain that they don't already have: each person can already say to themselves it is a possible cause, or some physical trauma to a developing brain, and regardless of which, it is okay to seek help from professionals. Going down the narrow tunnel of "there must have been one specific cause that I can find acceptable" may not be healthy.
This comment is specifically the kind of comment that I was worried about when I posted above about being careful. Choco explicitly did not argue for anything of this type. They were expressing...
This comment is specifically the kind of comment that I was worried about when I posted above about being careful.
Your argument that traumatized children should be euthanized ignores the proven power of rehabilitation.
Choco explicitly did not argue for anything of this type. They were expressing concern about the direction that these sorts of discussions can go, and the issues that arch conservative societies can encounter when discussing these issues. This is why we have trouble discussing issues like this - immediate and thoughtless misattribution and misunderstanding, because this is a hot topic that can easily get out of control.
There are lots of examples of laws that end up hurting the people that need protection the most, and being worried about unreasonable consequences to so-called good intentions is a very important...
There are lots of examples of laws that end up hurting the people that need protection the most, and being worried about unreasonable consequences to so-called good intentions is a very important thing, especially in the current political climate of the west. There are loads of examples of arch-conservative societies implementing laws that are bad for victims; it is perhaps one of the defining characteristics of the United States of America that they have done so repeatedly and for years.
In a topic such as this, where the results can be framed as support for something that is almost universally reviled, and in a society where such can be weaponized, misunderstandings and misattributions like this are likely sufficient for not having this conversation. And to that end, I'm also removing myself from this post.
Statistics do not support a 100% rate of mental illness. Not even 100% report "impacts to their mental health." What are you basing your speculation on besides unrelated adult trauma which is not...
will be mentally ill.
Statistics do not support a 100% rate of mental illness. Not even 100% report "impacts to their mental health."
What are you basing your speculation on besides unrelated adult trauma which is not treated the same as ACEs of all sorts.
Asserting that everyone who experienced sexual trauma and did not immediately receive help is mentally ill is not merely stating an opinion someone can choose to agree or disagree with. It is...
Asserting that everyone who experienced sexual trauma and did not immediately receive help is mentally ill is not merely stating an opinion someone can choose to agree or disagree with. It is asserting that a fact is true -- and not just often true, but universally true about an entire population of people that almost certainly has a handful of members here on Tildes.
Your insistence on brushing away counterevidence to maintain these types of universal claims about people who have experienced trauma does not bode well for your actually taking a scientific perspective on them, and neither does insisting that this is all just your opinion, as though that makes it matter less when the things you assert are not substantiated by evidence and betray an honestly dehumanizing view towards those who have experienced trauma. And that's just your assertions here, without even touching the extremely sensitive issue that you started the conversation about.
Being uninterested in facts - which are not just based on professional diagnosis but also on other research methods - is further demonstration of why this is not a productive or useful conversation
Being uninterested in facts - which are not just based on professional diagnosis but also on other research methods - is further demonstration of why this is not a productive or useful conversation
How the hell did you get from repressive governments might euthanize as an extreme response based on faulty logic, to op advocating euthanasia. I'm leaving this discussion but you raise doubt...
How the hell did you get from repressive governments might euthanize as an extreme response based on faulty logic, to op advocating euthanasia.
I'm leaving this discussion but you raise doubt about your good faith here.
Look up paedophilia (or hypersexuality) following injury, there's a few papers on the topic. You can be perfectly fine, bang your head and wake up a paedophile. Makes sense to me, albeit a me with...
Look up paedophilia (or hypersexuality) following injury, there's a few papers on the topic. You can be perfectly fine, bang your head and wake up a paedophile.
Makes sense to me, albeit a me with basically zero knowledge of psychology or neuroscience. Brain makes thoughts. Hurt brain makes different thoughts.
Obviously that's not going to be the only route there, but brain is complex system.
This will be an area where you would be best served by reading books by experts, actual experts with credentials and research experience, and research articles. Having worked in this field, this is one of those things I have zero interest in discussing in a forum. But perhaps there are others here with that sort of professional or research experience.
Edit:
Folks in the US who have experienced any sexual violence can reach the RAINN hotline at 800-656-4643
And their online or WhatsApp chat via their website
And the University of Minnesota has created an international resource (PDF)
I'm happy to assist in connecting people to those resources if needed.
I think this is a very reductive stance to take. The prevailing theory in Psychiatry as far as I know is generally that there is not necessarily one cause of any specific disorder, but that a variety of influences can be involved, such as genetic and epigenetic traits, childhood experiences, developmental differences, hormonal issues, differences in brain structure, medical events, etc. I think that approaching this more from a discovery standpoint - "what causes [x]" instead of "is [x] caused by one specific issue" will have more benefits in your search.
With as much respect as I can, I would recommend being very, very careful about discussion on this topic, and about having a topic like this be the first topic you jump into for discussion on a new site. I'm going to flag the discussion for @Deimos to have a look at and to consider for locking. I'm not sure that this is one of the best topics for discussion.
This is a topic I’m curious to see discussed, as it intersects my interests around neuroscience, psychology, philosophy, and justice.
It is one of the last areas that receives absolutely zero sympathy from anyone across the entire political spectrum and something that people are content to label simply as “evil” in some medieval manner, yet it exists and must have a biological basis. Our understanding it so we can treat or manage it seems logical.
There is a possibility that this is an alt account from a longer standing community member due to the sensitivity of the topic, but yes I welcome monitoring from admin.
Not sure how you can have a constructive conversation about a niche, sensitive, and triggering topic in general discussion site. This sort of topic needs significant oversight and realtime moderation as it can quickly devolve into misinformation, fights, etc.
If it was more of a time boxed discussion with vetted experts in the field, sure, like an ama. But as a general discussion, no. I'm with @aphoenix, this should be locked.
You're asking a factual question, one which most people here are not capable of answering nor do they have the educational or employment background to discuss. Unless I'm about to be very surprised about many more people here than I suspect
There's no benefit to a bunch of non-psychiatrist/psychologists/mental health practitioners in this specific field of expertise discussing their feelings on the matter.
Silence would in fact cause less harm than you've already done in the thread by your reply misattributing an argument.
Reread NotaFae's comment. They are saying the harm was caused by you misattributing the argument earlier in the thread, not raising the question. This is the second time you have seemingly not taken the effort to read and understand in the thread, and that does not make for a productive or useful conversation.
Once again you've falsely misattributed and misunderstood a point.
Plenty of people feel confident on a topic that are not experts. As you have demonstrated.
I find the extreme stigmatism of this topic (to the point where even innocuously asking for studies would get threatened with being shut down from further discussion) kind of fascinating from a phenomenological perspective. I completely understand (and share) the opinion that the subject matter describes a disorder that could lead to reprehensible criminal acts... but I mean I also find serial murdering reprehensible, but I don't think expressing an interest in discussing (or consuming research, podcasts, documentaries, or even fictional Netflix series about) serial murderers would typically be viewed in a similar light.
General discussion about suicide in uncontrolled environments have been linked to people attempting suicide. I think it would be a travesty if a similar discussion on paedophilia here was linked to a person acting on their impulse which is why sensitive topics like this should be closely monitored and moderated.
I think a better topic would be do we want to have these sorts of discussion on tildes and if so, how can they be done in manner that is safe for all members of the community. A survivor of childhood sexual abuse might want to avoid or be informed how to hide this topic prior to going to the site
100% agree. Especially after reading more of the discussion taking place in this thread.
I was just wondering at why similar discussions around the (arguably worse) crime of murder doesn't seem to suffer a similar stigmatism. But after mulling it over I thought of something that maybe makes some sense--the direct victims of murder aren't around anymore to relive their trauma, which might lead to people perceiving it as less taboo to talk about more casually.
I think that it's possible to have nuanced, thoughtful discussions on this topic, but very difficult, especially on this type of public forum. OP's blasé approach throughout this post and its comments is not, imo, conducive to the kind of constructive, nuanced discussion that would be ideal.
This is one case where I bemoan the lack of a downvote on Tildes.
While I do not think the topic was started maliciously, I do not believe this is a discussion that should be welcome on the site. Or at a minimum, not this discussion — after seeing a few interactions here.
This is not the only such topic that starts out being super-sensitive, with extreme care needed to handle it well, but it is certainly one that requires it. And, alas, such care has not been taken.
In cases where a topic is not interesting to me, or something I do not wish to participate in but believe others should, I can certainly hide/ignore the topic. And I can do that here, but believe that this topic rises to the level of speaking out against it.
I do not think this topic is a valuable contribution to the Tildes community.
I do not mean to say anything negative about anyone; but I do mean to say that I do not think this topic belongs on Tildes - not this post, at least.
And I feel strongly enough to make this comment saying so.
I'm going to give OP the benefit of the doubt, but I'm hearing a warning alarm in my head right now.
Scientifically speaking, even if we are able to prove that 100% of current cases result from remembered or repressed childhood sexual trauma, that is still a correlation of 1, and does not establish the mechanism, ie, cause, right?
I would also provide this caution: when society becomes convinced that there is causal relationship when there is only correlation, it tends to lead to inhumane treatment of others. "Blame the parents", witch hunt for the perpetrators, subjecting the sufferer to endless rounds of therapy until the memory is un-repressed even when there isn't one. In the most extreme case conceivable: euthanize child victims and mandate state monitoring of adult victims. Which is absolutely horrific and should never be but I do not underestimate what ultra conservative societies are willing to do.
The sufferers have nothing to gain that they don't already have: each person can already say to themselves it is a possible cause, or some physical trauma to a developing brain, and regardless of which, it is okay to seek help from professionals. Going down the narrow tunnel of "there must have been one specific cause that I can find acceptable" may not be healthy.
This comment is specifically the kind of comment that I was worried about when I posted above about being careful.
Choco explicitly did not argue for anything of this type. They were expressing concern about the direction that these sorts of discussions can go, and the issues that arch conservative societies can encounter when discussing these issues. This is why we have trouble discussing issues like this - immediate and thoughtless misattribution and misunderstanding, because this is a hot topic that can easily get out of control.
There are lots of examples of laws that end up hurting the people that need protection the most, and being worried about unreasonable consequences to so-called good intentions is a very important thing, especially in the current political climate of the west. There are loads of examples of arch-conservative societies implementing laws that are bad for victims; it is perhaps one of the defining characteristics of the United States of America that they have done so repeatedly and for years.
In a topic such as this, where the results can be framed as support for something that is almost universally reviled, and in a society where such can be weaponized, misunderstandings and misattributions like this are likely sufficient for not having this conversation. And to that end, I'm also removing myself from this post.
Please read my post again and especially the bolded sentence. I'm removing myself from this post.
Statistics do not support a 100% rate of mental illness. Not even 100% report "impacts to their mental health."
What are you basing your speculation on besides unrelated adult trauma which is not treated the same as ACEs of all sorts.
Asserting that everyone who experienced sexual trauma and did not immediately receive help is mentally ill is not merely stating an opinion someone can choose to agree or disagree with. It is asserting that a fact is true -- and not just often true, but universally true about an entire population of people that almost certainly has a handful of members here on Tildes.
Your insistence on brushing away counterevidence to maintain these types of universal claims about people who have experienced trauma does not bode well for your actually taking a scientific perspective on them, and neither does insisting that this is all just your opinion, as though that makes it matter less when the things you assert are not substantiated by evidence and betray an honestly dehumanizing view towards those who have experienced trauma. And that's just your assertions here, without even touching the extremely sensitive issue that you started the conversation about.
Being uninterested in facts - which are not just based on professional diagnosis but also on other research methods - is further demonstration of why this is not a productive or useful conversation
How the hell did you get from repressive governments might euthanize as an extreme response based on faulty logic, to op advocating euthanasia.
I'm leaving this discussion but you raise doubt about your good faith here.
Look up paedophilia (or hypersexuality) following injury, there's a few papers on the topic. You can be perfectly fine, bang your head and wake up a paedophile.
Makes sense to me, albeit a me with basically zero knowledge of psychology or neuroscience. Brain makes thoughts. Hurt brain makes different thoughts.
Obviously that's not going to be the only route there, but brain is complex system.