the rape victim series II

[sosadlyfucked.livejournal.com]

"he said it wouldn't hurt"






About 44% of rape victims are under age 18. Three out of every twenty victims (15%) are under age 12.

rape, abuse, and incest national network

Comments

[elenbarathi.livejournal.com]

"Many of you have argued and fought whenever someone suggested spoilering and censoring you"

When you say "many of you", to whom are you referring? Your post here is in reply to mine, but I have not "argued and fought" about this issue, nor posted about it at all (nor has my 'brother' Duathir.) Do you mean khailitha, or jinxtiger, or tir_nan_og? They have not done so either. The others who have posted to this thread, I have not followed so closely, so can't say what arguments they may have been involved in. However, if you are talking to a specific person, or a specific set of people, perhaps you ought to address your remarks specifically to them, rather than assuming that those who have posted here are part of some sort of group-mind.

"This is not a support group" - no? What is it, then? It's not specifically a rape-survivor support group, no, but if you have not observed the fact that a great many people here identify themselves as trauma-induced multiple, then you haven't been paying attention. If you're not aware of the way in which trauma-induced multiplicity commonly happens, then you really haven't been paying attention.

Isn't it interesting how, whenever people get hurt, there's always someone showing up to defend the "rights" of the person who hurt them, and to tell them that it's their own fault they got hurt, that they're too sensitive, and that they had no right to expect not to be hurt, or to object to it when they were?

Isn't it interesting how often that 'someone' in this particular community is you?

[sethrenn.livejournal.com]

"This is not a support group" - no? What is it, then? It's not specifically a rape-survivor support group, no, but if you have not observed the fact that a great many people here identify themselves as trauma-induced multiple, then you haven't been paying attention.

Then the name needs to be changed. Multiplicity is too inclusive, if it is primarily for trauma-induced multiples. If that's the case we no longer belong here and neither do ksol1460 and a great many of our friends who post here. Calling it "multiplicity" without the specific caveat that it is primarily for trauma-induced multiples (not just multiples who have been abused-- trauma-created) is discriminatory and misleading.

[ksol1460.livejournal.com]

At one time, the purpose of this group was to discuss multiplicity in an uncensored format similar to the old darkpersonalities list (http://www.topica.com/lists/darkpersonalities), which is still active over at topica.

As such, trauma-based multiples and the like were welcome, but the community itself did not exist solely as a support group for them.

Since the assistant manager added words like "abuse survivors" and "dysfunctionality" to the interest list, the community has been moving in that direction, as people end up here having done interest searches on those topics.

This is the second time that a member has referred to this community as being based on traumatic experience. As Shiu points out, the name of the community needs to be changed if the majority of community members want for it to become a place specifically for abuse-origin multiples.

[tir-nan-og.livejournal.com]

'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.
I dont think we need to get into a big hooha about changing Multiplicity or more rigorous censorship. It was taken care of amongst ourselves without any outside rules. It was really rather personal rather than something that needs to be taken into account as far as the tone of the community in general.
Some of us found that doll PARTICULARLY heinous. I've never uttered a peep about something being gratuitous for a particular community before, but that did it. It was really a personal sort of thing. Elenbarathi knew I and another close friend were going to have a hard time with it, and so she spoke her mind in her firm, clear way. I was very troubled because I, in turn, anticipated my friend seeing it, and it seemed like the sort of thing she would be particularly vulnerable to seeing.
Again, what made it more unacceptable was the fact that it seemed to be primarily an art piece, or motivated by darker intentions, as Jinx replied. (The art itself wasnt bad, by the way.)
I think this particular wave of responses by a group of close-knit friends need not bode changes for the house rules of this community, John Shao.

[sethrenn.livejournal.com]

I don't believe John was talking about changing the community rules. In fact I can't see where he said they ought to be. He said the name ought to be changed if the majority of systems here identify as being trauma-created, which I had been the first one to propose-- if the focus is going to be on protecting people from getting triggered due to things which remind them of past traumas, it's not a place we're going to feel welcome in.

Likewise, what you perceive here is also a wave of responses by a group of close-knit friends. None of us have the power to effect change in the rules of the community, as we are not mods, even if we had wanted to.

[tir-nan-og.livejournal.com]

You are right. I had assumed a change of name would mean a change of bylaws as well.
The thing that really attracts me to this community is that it is a crossroads for all kinds of multiples, and the entire range of thought regarding multiplicity itself. We have aspie multiples, otherkin, simply natural multiples, natural with trauma as a kicker..the whole gamut, right up to and including trauma ORIGIN and the whole medicalised DID model. As such, we are right on the front lines of many battles. We dicker about philosophy, ideology, psychiatry and neurology, and ethics. We have to plod through so much swampy ground to discuss these wildly divergent views of ourselves.
To get to the point, I would be extremely sorry if you and ksol no longer felt welcome in the community because of this particular wave of feeling. An expression of strong emotions by multiples with a trauma background, over one particular image, is not a signal that you should be on your merry way. For my own part, I would be shocked if the same reaction to an image would ever happen again..you can quote me on that. It was a particularly effective, highly specific, completely ill timed image. We all have our achilles heels.

[sethrenn.livejournal.com]

'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).

[tir-nan-og.livejournal.com]

Yes. Absolutely.

[elenbarathi.livejournal.com]

*shrugs* Cast your eyes up to the top there; note that the words "I'm natural multiple, not trauma-induced" appear in my original post. That fact doesn't prevent me from being aware of the vulnerabilities of others here who aren't so fortunate.

Perhaps the name of the community needs to be changed to something like "gruesomegothart", if the majority of people in this community feel that this is an appropriate place for that sort of thing to be posted. Is sosadlyfucked multiple herself? We don't know, because she hasn't said. Has she ever posted here before? Don't think so. Why, then, would she come to this community to post such a thing? If multiplicity and abuse-survivorship are in no way related, isn't her post off-topic?

[tir-nan-og.livejournal.com]

She was posting here at the time I first began livejournal, under another name.
(I happen to remember this from links through another multiple community..it is not that I'm so involved I assiduously researched.)
So, possibly multiple as well. The conflicts around this image wouldnt be resolved by wether she were singlet or not, I'm afraid.

[sosadlyfucked.livejournal.com]

I really should just delete this entry. It's just not dropping. I thought that the community leader would have deleted it by now, because if it's doing so much harm, then what good would it do to keep arguing and getting upset over it. If it was a mistake, just delete it and drop it.

I happen to love this community. I have posted here on numerous occassions. I have about 10 livejournals (http://www.livejournal.com/users/absinthestalker/friends) because I use one for different aspects of my personality. I don't claim to be multiple, although I have had therapists suspect, investigate and even diagnose me as such. Among other things. But, I find that to be irrelevant. Psychotherapy, in itself, is flawed and I have little faith in it. I've been in therapy since I was 15, institutionalized 4 times and taken everything from old-new anti-depressants to anti-psychotics to anticonvulsants. I have a chronic stomach disorder which has caused me chronic pain my entire life. I gave up on therapy when they told me my only option left was ECT. I don't know if any of this bullshit matters, but since you brought up my credibility, there you go. Honestly, I think it's completely irrelevant and off the subject. In fact, I'm almost disgusted at sharing this because I don't even tell hardly any of my friends about these details.

As for my intention, I already stated it. I wanted to share my art with individuals I thought would appreciate it on some level or another. I have thought about it (being that I've never posted a video before EVER)... I really should have used a different name than sosadlyfucked. I should have used fragileintimacy because the video belonged to her to begin with. I also suspect I shouldn't have put rape statistics with the image.

[sosadlyfucked.livejournal.com]

OR... for this particular community, I probably should have shared something about what the image portrayed to me. Like she said "an artist's statement." I don't claim to be an artist really. I'm just beginning to learn how to create such mediums. I honestly know nothing about art or the culture/norms/expectations that go with it.

I already apologized in the beginning of all this because I realized that I offended someone. Like I said, that was never my intention. I don't care so much about people insulting me because I'm not personally involved with anyone to really feel there is any validity. It does kinda hurt to be compared to a trendy wanna-be shock goth chick. But, I DO acknowledge that my naivety towards the presentation of my art was harmful (for at least one or two people) and I apologize for that again. Don't mistakenly think that I don't respect you. But forgive me for not being good at it.

I don't even post about this anymore because I don't feel my words really even matter. The issue seems beyond me. Like I've given birth to something so evil that apologies or shame means nothing compared to the act itself. I feel my apologies and explanations are worthless now.

I confess my art isn't good by any normal standard. I probably shouldn't be posting my art at all at this point. This entire experience has discouraged me greatly in trusting my own ability to share my art.

[tir-nan-og.livejournal.com]

"I confess my art isnt good by any normal standard.."
Actually, I thought it was pretty effective, and aesthetically had appeal. I have no problem detaching from my more personalised and visceral reaction in order to say that.
You certainly havent given birth to anything so evil that apologies or shame are worthless. We saw a powerful image and have been having an intense discussion about powerful images, and the vulnerability of a segment of the multiple population. This too shall pass.
I hope you continue with your art, and I apologise, if I have said anything to personally hurt your feelings. There are so many things to learn in the process of our relating to one another, that it is impossible to do everything perfectly.

[elenbarathi.livejournal.com]

I didn't actually "bring up your credibility"; certainly did not ask for the personal details of your medical or psychiatric history. The questions I raised were, one, whether you are multiple; two, whether you had ever posted here before; three, if "no" to both, what were you doing coming here posting that image?

So, okay, your answers to the first two questions are somewhat ambiguous - you don't claim to be multiple but some other people have thought you might be, and you have posted here before but under different user-names - but that's good enough for me. I acknowledge that you do have a right to be here, and are not just some "trendy wanna-be shock goth chick" coming in to poke the weirdos. That would have been clearer if you'd posted under a handle you were known by here, and/or had said something about who you are and why you were posting the image, but at least it is clear now.

What pissed me off more than the image itself was your livejournal post about "why is this so offensive?", and especially the prevailing attitude expressed there, that anyone who would find it offensive needs to seek professional help. I think it's safe to say that most of those here who would find it offensive have already sought professional help, and in many cases have found only "professional harm" instead. Comments about belief in the resilience of the human spirit are not to the point either - belief in the resilience of human flesh doesn't give one the right to either cut people up or to discount their protests about having been cut on the grounds that they will probably heal eventually.

I realize that you are not responsible for the remarks or attitudes of people who post to your Lj. However, until now, you had not made any apology in this community about having hurt or upset people (however accidentally), nor was there any apology on your Lj, where the attitude expressed seemed to be "Ha ha, look how shocking I am; I got thrown out of three communities (of losers) just for this." Apologies and explanations are never worthless, but one does have to actually make them in order for them to have worth. Now that you have made some, I accept them, and apologize in turn for mistaking your intentions and hurting your feelings.

As for your art... the purpose of art is to express emotion in such a way that an emotional response is elicited in its audience. It's not necessarily going to be a good, happy, positive response - actually, it would be silly to expect such a response to an image of pain and distress, even from people who have not personally experienced the sort of pain and distress expressed in the image. You got more emotional response here than you bargained for, is all. It doesn't mean your art is evil; it just means (as khailitha explained on your Lj) that you need to consider your choice of venue more carefully.

I am a poet and musician rather than a visual artist, but I too have some work that I would not share because the emotion it would elicit would be unrelieved pain. It doesn't mean it's bad work - it succeeds quite well as art, meaning it does what art is supposed to do very effectively - but it would not be responsible of me to inflict more pain on people who may already have as much as they can bear.

DId she say primarily?

[spookshow-girl.livejournal.com]

Because I read "a great many", which is vague, but distinctly not the same thing as primarily.

Just my thought on the matter.

--Her