SQTDDTOT

[JohnTrent]

Why do Westerners who were abused at a young age so commonly grow up into malformed adults? Lots of women pretend to have been raped, but the ones (and men too) that were actually raped seem to suffer a lot, for reasons that I don't understand. Through what mechanism is rape harmful in these cases? Rape is more common in third world countries, but as far as I know they don't have this issue. I can't make sense of it, but maybe there's a simple explanation I haven't considered.

There's the simple answer to the question (BillyONare's rhetorical question “Why does being damaged damage things?”) and another that might still leave some things unresolved. The latter is what I thought of first, and I'll try to give the best explanation possible for the alternate answer. 

This is what Adam Lanza had to say on the matter, which is comparable to other claims mentioned by Susan A. Clancy in her book "The Trauma Myth" (and maybe other authors too, but I have not delved too far into the subject):

Adult panic or disgust about young people's seeking pleasure for themselves is responsible for much of the trauma that minors experience when they are caught behaving “inappropriately” for their ages, even in a consensual context.
[...]
The response of the criminal justice system both to the ‘victim’ and ‘offender’ in adult-child cases is counter-productive. We have already seen that the older male is treated with contempt by both the police and the courts and little sympathy is shown towards the way he will be treated in prison. Similarly, the young male’s treatment bears a remarkable similarity to that received by incest victims. In both paedophilia and incest considerable distress to the boy or girl occurs when parents, relatives or the police themselves discover the relationship. Constant and often insensitive questioning adds to this distress and it is not unusual to find that many researchers have noted that far more damage is caused by the confrontations the child has with his parents or the legal authorities than by the act itself.

In the conclusion of Susan A. Clancy's book:

What hurts most victims is not the experience itself but the meaning of the experience—how victims make sense of what happened and how these understandings make them feel about themselves and others and subsequently impact their emotions and behaviors. In short, an event does not have to be traumatic when it happens to cause harm later on. It is the retrospective interpretation of the event that mediates subsequent impact.

I would suggest the meaning aspect in Clancy's book (italics mine) has a significant role in how these people are perceived after the incident (and, if current times are any proof, the incident is detached from the foundation of pedophilia and more onto bad behavior arbitrarily decided by the supposed victim). The people we could consider legitimate victims in the West feel a millstone around their neck throughout most of their adolescent and adult life, usually having a poor upbringing. I wonder at times if half the struggle of determining these people's character is a result of a category-mistake: sex abuse studies viewing their subjects as mainly a product of the incident, and not of the general environment; the details of their life are obscured, and so an accurate account of their stresses, misfortunes, etc. are erased from the record. In the eyes of someone concerned only about the act of rape or precocious sex, the emotional implosion of a subject is only associated with the original event, but one must wonder hundreds of incidents that transpired over the course of their life that resulted in their psychic breaks/hard drug addictions. The trauma model would have it only one way.

It is a truism at this point that the Western population has a greater capacity for introspection than those in the Turd World, and when one encounters the insistence of sexual trauma, the implied meanings transfer over to how they perceive their life trajectory. Traumatic events act as a demarcation of time in the inner lives of these people and, as such, it has the potential to change all self-perception once they perceive the larger implications of trauma. "Retreating into oneself" is a common characteristic if you find such people in real life, especially so if they claimed to realize what happened a decade or so after: the idea of the self has been unraveled, and because the events are supposed to incur incredible turmoil on the victims, the unintentional result is to view themselves as a bearer of pain. [Note: Susan Clancy does not believe in repressed memories in the conventional sense, whereas I mostly do and am just using this as an example]. "I thought I was a normal person but found out later I am only just barely functional", "It was only later that I realized how awful it really was", or "Sometimes I am in a normal setting, remember what happened, and stop to think 'I wish I was more like them'" are all things these people might say. Personal observation not backed by any available evidence right now: those who discuss their event frequently tend to experience more nightmares about it than those who seldom discuss it at all. The CBT practice of making patients relive trauma seems very retarded to me compared to something like EMDR.

Onto the subject of arbitrarily decided bad behavior: I believe that there is a gradual shift in how trauma is perceived to the point where people could authentically feel the same thing from incidental occurrences. So long as trauma is considered applicable to more innocent events like catcalling, a three to five year age difference ("grooming"), etc., the reasonable reaction is to consider this as a cynical ploy — they might feel scorned by the end of the relationship and begin a crusade against the boyfriend for their perceived wrongs. That is true in a lot of cases. What I'd also argue is that, on some level, certain people genuinely believe the ordinary events are traumatic, and a network that facilitates these thoughts assists in re-conceptualization, just the same with cases we would consider more extreme. We have yet to see the full implications of this, but given that gender relations have taken up a hostile character, we can suppose that women en masse are beginning to perceive themselves as essentially traumatized.

[JohnTrent]

...

Addendum:
Part of the trouble in producing a detailed answer involves the controversy of False Memory Syndrome, and as I noted in my edit, I find little reason to doubt a memory recovered in later years. We can question the mechanism of repression and point to what Clancy said in an interview ("normal forgetting and remembering"), but it's also worth noting that previous research of hers suggested that certain individuals are prone to the creation of false memories. Simply put, I find False Memory Syndrome to be too NAMBLA-tier to be accounted for here, and skepticism for the trauma model seems more like the right approach (along with practices that assist in distancing rather than re-living in the case of later psychic troubles, ranging from EMDR to something more hypnotic). I'm inclined to agree with David McGowan about how FMS is more of a cudgel used by suspicious characters than a legitimate diagnosis.

[Mason Hall-McCullough]

Thanks, that's a very informative response. I was also confused by the things I had heard about women "enjoying" rape which made me question whether it was even harmful at all, but this theory accounts for that. You've convincingly argued that reflecting on childhood abuse could be more directly harmful than the abuse itself.

As I hope to have made clear in the book, sexual abuse is never OK. No matter what the circumstances are, or how it impacts the victims, sexual abuse is an atrocious, despicable crime. Just because it rarely physically or psychologically damages the child does not mean it is OK. Harmfulness is not the same thing as wrongfulness. And why is it wrong? Because children are incapable of consent.

However, Clancy is careful to reinforce that rape is uniquely doubleplusungood because of "consent" to prevent her argument from being misused by pedophiles, which seems arbitrary and dogmatic. If we disregard this dogma, it's not immediately clear why we shouldn't just treat rape as a minor crime or everyday occurrence.

I think we can reconcile Clancy's theory with rape's harmfulness using the clear pill, and there may be another component to the trauma experienced by victims (in addition to the retrospective realization that they were betrayed). True rape is degenerate (eroding norms such as marriage) and dysgenic (if it leads to pregnancy), thus being harmful to wider society. Homosexual abuse is also harmful because it is likely to change a person's sexual orientation making them unmarriageable, as well as to perpetuate itself through more abuse. This is the origin of our natural and strong revulsion towards the idea of rape, even if on its own it can only partially explain how victims are affected by rape. This is probably reflected in the libtard conception of rape as ontological evil (justified by the dogma of "consent"). Because true victims of childhood abuse do not often feel like they were directly harmed at the time by the act of abuse (maybe they even enjoyed it), they may also feel culpable and suffer psychological harm for the sin of rape whose primary victim is society. Of course, the children were totally unwitting in this sin and they shouldn't blame themselves.

It's unclear how we can strongly disincentivize rape without in effect punishing innocent parties psychologically and harming their development, but I suppose it's a necessary evil to a degree. Still, Clancy is probably right that clinical approaches could improve if we changed our perspective on what this childhood trauma really is. Psychologists harm patients by considering the effects of how we harshly deal with rape (worse than murder?) to be inherent to the act of rape itself. Perhaps our approach could improve further if we also acknowledged that rape is a crime against society as much as if not more than it is a crime against the individual.

Onto the subject of arbitrarily decided bad behavior: I believe that there is a gradual shift in how trauma is perceived to the point where people could authentically feel the same thing from incidental occurrences. So long as trauma is considered applicable to more innocent events like catcalling, a three to five year age difference ("grooming"), etc., the reasonable reaction is to consider this as a cynical ploy — they might feel scorned by the end of the relationship and begin a crusade against the boyfriend for their perceived wrongs. That is true in a lot of cases. What I'd also argue is that, on some level, certain people genuinely believe the ordinary events are traumatic, and a network that facilitates these thoughts assists in re-conceptualization, just the same with cases we would consider more extreme. We have yet to see the full implications of this, but given that gender relations have taken up a hostile character, we can suppose that women en masse are beginning to perceive themselves as essentially traumatized.

I think you're right. There is a point at which believing something to be harmful causes it to become actually harmful to a degree. The solution here is to just invalidate all lesser "trauma", but as you've pointed out, some of the "trauma" is actually real and experienced by people. It's not easy to convince anyone that their direct experiences were essentially social hallucinations.

Part of the trouble in producing a detailed answer involves the controversy of False Memory Syndrome, and as I noted in my edit, I find little reason to doubt a memory recovered in later years. We can question the mechanism of repression and point to what Clancy said in an interview ("normal forgetting and remembering"), but it's also worth noting that previous research of hers suggested that certain individuals are prone to the creation of false memories. Simply put, I find False Memory Syndrome to be too NAMBLA-tier to be accounted for here, and skepticism for the trauma model seems more like the right approach (along with practices that assist in distancing rather than re-living in the case of later psychic troubles, ranging from EMDR to something more hypnotic). I'm inclined to agree with David McGowan about how FMS is more of a cudgel used by suspicious characters than a legitimate diagnosis.

I agree, I saw that Clancy wrote another book about alien abduction testimonies where she focuses more on how false memories might be created during the process of clinical treatment, but this phenomenon is probably uncommon and isn't linked very strongly to CSA (which does occur frequently in the real world). I think it's more common for memories to be embellished and twisted subtly by rumination, so a unenjoyable sexual experience under the right social incentives can grow into a rape accusation within the enigmatic female mind. But it seems inappropriate to pathologize this as a disorder. Psychology can be really hard to model and I may have complicated this further by introducing more ideas, but your response definitely helped to demystify this.

[Oldblood]

I've been thinking about this clip and the discourse surrounding it.

https://twitter.com/wideawake_media/stat...1646317988

Where a young woman is robbed at gunpoint by a black (presumably) while a young man watches and runs away.
The overwhelming consensus now is that he had every reason to, why should he endanger himself (or risk imprisonment) for her.
I am sympathetic to this but I can't help but feel it comes from a bad or cowardly place.

Personally I think I would have attacked the robber. As long as you don't kill the nigger there's a fairly decent chance you'll get away with it and that's good enough for me, I don't really have a lot to live for anyway and would just feel like such a faggot for watching and running away.

Here's what I'm interested in knowing from those who wouldn't: if you saw a white man fighting/being robbed by a black or even a group, would you then help?
I think a lot then would say yes, what sort of racially conscious man wouldn't? Watch this video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a5V6gdu5ih8

The factor of her being a woman seems to make a big difference, a lot of comments say it's what she would have voted for.
Personally I think on the right we forget how contemptible the vast majority of men are. Just because 100% of women are dumb slaves doesn't redeem men being 99%. And we're pretending that voting makes a difference now? Because she may have voted for the liberal party that wants to import niggers instead of the conservative party that wants to import niggers?
Most men you meet think you should be in prison, although I suppose one fighting with blacks is a sign of good character.

For me it's not even about the woman, it's about the audacity of the NIGGER.
Most right-wingers seem content with smugly crossing their arms and saying
'Minorities can attack our people and guess what - we won't do a thing about it! That'll show you.'
The smartest thing likely would be to stay out of that situation but I certainly wouldn't be proud of it.

[Illustrious]

No, I wouldn't do a thing. When I think of protecting my own race, I think of white males, not white thots. A bro is getting attacked by a nigger? count me in, we're gonna smack that nigger down. A white woman, your mortal enemy? fuck her. I will think this way until 3DPD become 2D.

[isotope]

I've been thinking about this clip and the discourse surrounding it.
https://twitter.com/wideawake_media/stat...1646317988

[...]

You are talking about it as if the decision to defend the woman (or a man in your hypothetical scenario) was influenced only by one's willingness or unwillingness to take action. This is not how things are. If you live in the western world, then real self-defense is most likely punished by the state that you live in.

To directly answer your question

if you saw a white man fighting/being robbed by a black or even a group, would you then help?

I would have, if I were living in a country where 1) self-defense is very broadly understood and 2) possession of guns (and other effective weaponry) is not severely restricted by the state, like in most countries. Proper understanding of self-defense, I think, is when you can kill the attacker even if he tries to run away, and the idiotic standard of "reasonable force" is not present. I am calling the "reasonable force" (I don't know if that is the proper legal term in English) thing idiotic because an attack with a fist justifies response with a fucking grenade launcher.

I do not want to become the next Daniel Penny. Do you?

[anthony]

I've been thinking about this clip and the discourse surrounding it.

I wouldn't say a word... I would just listen...

[Dovetail Leaves]

What is it with the Japanese (or at least Japanese media) and their strange syncretic beliefs regarding illness?

On one hand, they have a conception of "Medicine" that is completely foreign to me. Characters in Japanese media seem to trust doctors a lot. They go to clinics all the time and are always talking about medicine they've taken to help with colds. I don't think I've ever taken medicine besides cough syrup, but that's only for coughing. Nearly all of the times I've been sick I took nothing, even when it was really bad. The Japanese have their Ganbatte attitude and I guess it carries over even to stuff like taking this so called "Medicine" I have no conception of. They use shampoo and go to dental clinics far more often than Americans apparently, so I guess the medicine thing makes sense. But at the same time they have this antiquated climatic perception of colds. Maybe this is just an anime trope and nobody actually believes that the cold causes a cold anymore, but regardless I see it paired with the dedicated medicine taking which comes off as really strange. This might have something to do with age, I had an older woman make a remark about medicine to me recently which sounded like a conception similar to a manga character (as in, it was just something you took and had ready at the appropriate time). Well anyway, I'd like to know what you guys think.