'Abuse origin?' I dont think we need to hammer out that distinction. I seem to recall a discussion here about a month ago, where nature versus lack of nurture came up, and a fair ammount of people said that they had trauma in their backgrounds, but feel they would have been multiple anyway.
FWIW, I do think it's important that the distinction be made between people who feel they are multiple and happen to be abuse survivors, and people who feel they started out as one person who split due to trauma. The fact is that the public, by and large, thinks that ALL multiples are the latter. We feel it is important to make distinctions of "The fact that I was abused is not why I am multiple" (or even "I was abused -because- I was multiple," which is far more common than most people generally let on).
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2004-03-22 07:47 pm (UTC)FWIW, I do think it's important that the distinction be made between people who feel they are multiple and happen to be abuse survivors, and people who feel they started out as one person who split due to trauma. The fact is that the public, by and large, thinks that ALL multiples are the latter. We feel it is important to make distinctions of "The fact that I was abused is not why I am multiple" (or even "I was abused -because- I was multiple," which is far more common than most people generally let on).