Re: Psychological Abuse

[caen!bsbbs!cynthia@harvard.harvard.edu (Cynthia Rosas)]

katefans@chinet.chi.il.us (Chris n Vickie) writes:
 
> There are many people who will read this and be sorry they did. 

Well that's probably true enough.  

> To minimize
> this, I will tell you in advance that this post is about rape, psychological
> harm, lack of compassion and empathy, and rudeness. 

Sounds like it was mostly about you having either a psychotic
spell or a very bad PMS episode.

> Many people will see me in a different light after this is
> posted. 

Uh, no, not really, speaking for myself, anyways.

> This thread started with the PMRC, and led to Larry's equating psychological
> force with physical force. Melissa Caldwell took offense at this equation.
> 
> Larry posted a very painful story to illustrate his personal experiences
> with the use of psychological force. 

Actually, it seems to me that Larry's painfyl story, and it
was truly painful and I felt bad for him, demonstrated the
more extreme horror of physical force.  The psychological
part, though it took him longer to realize it, still was
something he had control over.  There may have been factors in
his own self that kept him from realizing "hey, i don't have
to do what i don't wanna", but still it was all under his
control.
The sexual abuse he referred to, apparently a physical abuse
against his will, was NOT in his control.  I think this is the
basis of the point Melissa has been making.

> Larry, Melissa and I would agree on one thing. A rape using physical force
> is a horrible thing. However, Melissa, even after reading Larry's chilling
> account of the psychological force used on him, continues to refuse to
> believe that there is such a thing as psychological force, and that such
> force should be equated with physical rape, and that such force can be 
> extremely harmful.
 
I don't think she ever denied the existence of psychological
force.  She's simply saying that to equate something that
still, each person has the ULTIMATE choice of whether to let
it rule them or not,   to something like rape, where your
choice is taken away from you by force, implies a "lessening"
of the severity of rape, and therefore is a sexist notion.
It AIN't the same thing as physical rape.

> Mythical eh?  "Fable; legend; ficticious story" is what my mini-dictionary
> says, so I assume you mean the same thing.
 
I think she meant "mythical" as in .. using it to excuse
everytime one does not have the willpower to say,No, I don't
want to do things that way, thank you.  Melissa, correct me if
I'm mistaken here.  That's how it read to me.

> Melissa, you don't know anything about the real world.
 
Vickie, you crossed over into being a dork on that one.  You
have no idea what Melissa has experienced or not.  If you
wanna compare torture notes, I know EXACTLY what psychological
pressure  and abuse is all about, firsthand, I don't really
choose to share my horror stories with the world, cause I've
never felt it was anybody's bidness, and still don't.   THabnk
err, that's Thank God I have never had the terror of a
physical rape.  The psycholological abuses were awful and
treacherous, and so _easy_ to succumb to if I'd let myself.
SOmetimes I did.  But it was entirely my choice, whether I saw
it that way at the time or not.

> M> that I may feel as a result of the pressure is due to a weakness in my 
> M> own character, and not because psychological pressure is so irresistible.
That was Melissa, the following is Vickie:
> You say "me" and "my" but you apply this to everybody else. It seems
> to me that you have never experienced serious psychological pressure.

 Well, I have, Vickie, and it's pretty nasty, but she's still
correct.

> To be presumptuous, I tend to think that what you are referring to amounts
> to turning down/turning away someone like a school date who is pestering a
> girl to go all the way, or a co-worker who is harrassing a woman to go to
> bed with him, to use a couple of common examples of psych pressure most
> women have had to put up with. In cases like that, it's true that very often
> it's "weakness of character" that results in sex. No, it's not forcible
> rape, and shouldn't be equated. Even so, psychological scars can result from
> the guilt and the anguish of such a sexual encounter. 
 
You most certainly _are_ being presumptuous.  Just cause
Melissa (or I, for that matter) may not be at the ready to
spill the guts to _you_ doesn't mean you can be so fucking
cavalier.

> There are much more serious forms of psychological pressure than the above
> examples though. You don't seem to think so, because you've never had the
> misfortune of experiencing any, and don't know anyone who has. That's nice,
> and again, I'm happy for you, but have you ever heard of the words "empathy"
> or "compassion?" If so, do you know what they mean? If so, have you ever
> felt either of these emotions? If so, are they reserved for family and 
> friends only?  

Who the fuck are you to tell anybody what they've experienced
or who they know or don't know who's experienced anything.
You are really something.  Maybe you should go work at
Blockbuster, so you could apply you own slightly fascist
tendencies where they could do the most "good".

> Can you reconcile that phrase with the example of a child who is
> sexually abused by a parent/relative/babysitter/whoever. If there is
> actual penetration, that is rape, is it not? OK, what if there isn't any
> penetration, but the abuse involves fondling or something else? What if
> the adult was nice and kind to the child, gained the child's trust and 
> didn't physically hurt the child? What if the adult told the child that 
> they (the adult) would get in trouble and might get hurt if the child told 
> on them, thus making the child feel guilty, thus playing with the child's 
> confusion between right and wrong, loyalty and honesty? 
> 
> Another scenario: what if the adult didn't physically hurt the child, but
> threatened the child or the child's parents if the child didn't do what the
> adult wanted? 
> 
> These are forms of psychological force, right? If you say, well, I'm
> talking about adults, not children, then you will have contradicted
> yourself already. So, scratch "We make our own choices."

  NOt at all.  We do make our own choices as adults.  Children
do not.  Fondling is still a physical abuse.  The aftermath of
such examples are horrible, and may leave the child confused
and torn.  However, as the child grows into adulthood, at some
point, he or she must decide to take control of his/her life ,
or to let the past occurences control it.  Same with
psychological force.  Not that it's easy, but it's still a
person't own choice tyo make.

> What if said child grows up in an environment of psychological abuse? 
> Would that person necessarily have the "strength of character" to be
> able to resist other forms of psychological pressure or force? Maybe. Maybe
> not. Maybe if they get counseling or therapy. Maybe they'll come out of it
> all fine, with no scars. Then again, maybe they'll go insane. Maybe they'll
> commit suicide. Then again, maybe they'll become President of the United
> States. Maybe they'll become a mass murderer. Maybe they'll become a 
> computer programmer. Maybe they'll become a counselor for other abused
> children, maybe they'll be your corner waitress. Maybe maybe maybe.
> 
> Maybe you should stop applying your own standards to the entire population 
> of the Planet Earth, because maybe you have no idea what *real* psycho-
> logical force is, and maybe you have no idea what *real* harm psychological
> abuse can cause.
 
I most certainly do.  Melissa may, as well. THat's her
personal business.  But if you want to say that a child who's
abused may easily grow into an adult who easily succumbs to
psych pressure, yesy, quite probably.  The person (adult) must
cope or not cope.  SInk or swim, as they say.  Youre talking
baout a damaged individual, and STILL, they have choices!
Melissa's point (I believe) is that the two psych-physical -
don't compare!  Force is NO CHOICE!  The child being fonded
had NO CHOICE.  Yet later, he or she has choices , even
damaged as he/she might be, to look within themselves, or if
need be, elsewhere, for help.

> Melissa still talking at Larry:
> M> I felt your remarks were sexist because you said that a woman can
> M> try to deflect a penis headed toward her vagina.   By talking
> M> specifically about the rape of a woman by a man and then downplaying 
> M> that as being less harmful than "psychological force", your comments
> M> sounded extremely sexist to me.  That sort of statement supports the 
> M> notion that women would not be raped if they would only resist.  
> M> Resistance can be effective, but many times it is not an option.  
> 
> Did you think up the above because Larry is a man? Does being male make
> him an easy target for your thoughtless rantings? What if *I* had said what 
> Larry said? I'm a female, would you accuse me of "sounding sexist?" 
> I happen to *agree* with what Larry said. So, call me sexist too. Before
> you do though, I should tell you that I've been raped. By force. Knowing
> that, would you deem me qualified to state the opinion that psychological
> force can be as harmful as physical force? If not, what would it take to
> be qualified in your eyes? Perhaps I have those qualifications, because
> I've also been raped by someone who used extremely intense psychological
> force. I had no choice in either case, both were unavoidable and both
> were tramautic. Which was worse? The physical rape was scarier because I
> didn't know if I would live or die. Which was ultimately more tramautic?
> The "psychological" rape, because of the guilt and the sickening aftermath
> of shame, the feeling that maybe I could have done something different,
> maybe I could have talked my way out of it. Maybe I could have, but then
> again, maybe I couldn't have, and just maybe I would have been left on a
> mountain at night in the middle of nowhere in the middle of winter in the
> middle of a snowstorm. As was very convincingly threatened.

How horrible for you.  I mean that sincerely.  I am so sorry
you had to go through anything so dehumanizing.

However, according to what you said, there was still an
implied physical threat to you.  Cooperate or you'll be left
out in the middle of nowhere in the middle of a frozen
wasteland, honey!  Sounds like your physical well being was
being threatened.  Sorry, when a rape occurs, it is a physical
attack, no matter HOW they "convinced" yo to cooperate.  Be
it, either cooperate or I'll punch your face in, or I'll shoot
you, or I'll strand you in the middle of Bumfuck, USA Your
differentaiation between the two rapes is thin.  Both were
physical assaults on you.  The second guy just decided to use
coercion so he could say, Hey, Your Honor, I didn't point a
gun to her head!

> How did I get myself into that situation, I might be asked (therefore
> subtly implying that what occured was my fault) and the answer is...
> I was a truck co-driver. He was my boss.  Was it "weakness of character" 
> that made me decide that using my body was better than being thrown out of
> the truck? No, I'd categorize it more along the lines of survival instinct.
> Can this situation be classified as "rape?" I think so. Was it "physical"
> rape? No. Was it rape using "psychological" force? Yes. Why was it more
> tramautic than the physical rape? Because of the societal attitude that a
> woman can resist psychological force if they have enough "strength of
> character." Deja Vu.
 
First of all, I never thought to ask "how".  I'm sure it was
through no fault of your own.  Survival is right.  You did
what you had to do.  Bu yes Vickie, it still was a physical
attack.  Your truck attacker simply was not so direct as to
use a weapon such as a gun or knife.

I think you're using a different definition of Psychological
force than was being discussed in gaffa up to this point.

> Larry understands the weight of his words. I understand the weight of
> his words. I bet a lot of other people do too. You understand nothing 
> about it. You don't even try. You don't even take the time to think about 
> it. You don't even give a millisecond's thought to how hard it must have 
> been for Larry to post his experience with psychological force in this
> this public and increasingly hostile forum. Instead, you take Larry's
> personal and extremely painful admission, re-post it, then trivialize it
> with your "regardless of your experience" and "weakness of character" and
> "conveniently avoiding personal responsibility" bullshit.

She reposted it to make her reply clear, as most of us do.
She certainly did not intend to demean his awful experience
I'm sure.  She was arguing an academic point.  

> Melissa, you have the empathy and compassion of a double-edged razor blade. 
> 
> I have my asbestos suit on and I'm ready to take on you or anyone else
> who hasn't got the foggiest notion of what psychological pressure/abuse/
> force/torture/pain is.
 
You know, Vickie, you give offthe air of a person who thinks
that you have the market cornered on "Having Had A Rough Time
of It".  Well, you don't.  You think you wrote the book on
psychological pressure/abuse/force/torture/pain, etc.?  You
sure come off that way.  You sound like a smug little twerp
who thinks that no one can be "deep" or "emotional" unless
they've suffered.  And certainly no one could come close to
you in that department,huh?  Sorry, that's how you come off in
this post, to me.

> Flames from people who think that I shouldn't have posted this will be
> noted, and ignored. I seem to be the resident "emotions defender" in this
> group and I speak out when I feel emotions have been stomped on harshly.
> In this case, Melissa makes Cynthia look like a Sunday School teacher.

  SHE DID NOT!  SHE DID NOT! SHE DID NOT! :-)
Nobody stomped on anybody's emotions here, you can't seem to
argue an academic point without making an emotional issue out
of it!

> My words will no doubt be turned around to make it look as if I don't
> believe that Melissa has a right to her opinion, and/or that I want to
> "squelch free speech" or some such nonsense. I'll answer this in advance.
> Melissa has every right to believe what she believes. I have every right to
> turn around and say that I think she's a thoughtless fluffhead. Richard has
> every right to tell me that his wife is NOT a thoughtless fluffhead and that
> my logic is all wrong and whatever else he wants to say in that Richard-like
> fashion of his. Cynthia has every right to charge in and tell me that my
> panties are all wadded up again, and Jon Drukman (or anyone else) has every
> right to tell me that I take things too seriously, this is only a newsgroup.
> Yes I take things like emotions seriously. I take mine seriously and I take
> Larry's seriously. Know what? I don't even know Larry. We've never met, and
> we've never even corresponded via e-mail. I know him as a name on
> Love-Hounds. But, I do know that he's a human being behind that computer
> screen, with feelings and emotions. I know that he took the ungodly risky
> chance of telling a very personal story, one that affected him very deeply
> and one that will be filed in his brain under "Trauma" for the rest of his
> life. And I know that Melissa came back at him and, through the wonder of
> modern technology and the Big Sky BBS, slapped him across the face and told
> him that he was "weak of character" and I don't give a shit how she worded
> it, or that I might be accused of putting words into her mouth, that's what
> she implied. She has the right to say anything she wants, but I also have 
> the right to be totally outraged about it. I also have the right to view
> Larry as one of the bravest people I've ever come across on the net. 
 
Well-l-l, Larry was honest, I hope he's "over" it, to the
extent that one can be "over" these things, in other words,
going on withonne's life, and coping and being the best person
they can be.  

As for the above tirade, Vickie, you need to try decaf.  You
sound like you're on the verge of a nervous breakdown, though
I hope you aren't.   You  sound to me like a person that has
difficulty with intellectually arguing a point that you
disagree with, so you resort to these tirades of emotionality,
where they are TOTALLY unwarranted.  Geez.

Sorry, but the whole tone of this post makes me glad I'll be
on vacation after tomorrow.  My eyeballs are totally sprained
from the repeated and violent rolling.  Hmmm, no one touched
me... it was psychological stimulus that made me roll them so
dang hard...AAAUUUUGGGGHHHHH.

I'm sorry for you're past experiences, but you really need to
get a grip on the discussion at hand, as it really is or was.
Otherwise, it's really hard to take you seriously sometimes!

I'm sorry to be flippant, (okay, so I'm not _that_ sorry), but
you are like out of your wrapping on this one!
Ouch, my eyeballs!!

Later,

Cyn

" Leather restraints, hot pokers..."
"Later, Darling."

----
Cynthia Rosas <cynthia@bsbbs.UUCP> <{n8emr|nstar}!bluemoon!bsbbs!cynthia>
The Big Sky BBS (+1 614 864 1198)