A Survivor's Take on: "The Trauma Myth" by Susan A. Clancy
Salon did an interview with the controversial author and researcher, Susan A. Clancy, former Harvard psychologist and current Director of research for Harvard-related Center for Women's Advancement in Nicaragua, this week. As I have read her other work, I was anxious to read her latest book, The Trauma Myth: The Truth About the Sexual Abuse of Children - and Its Aftermath.
With this latest release, she again walks the fine line of controversy while attempting to advocate for a new paradigm in how we view trauma. After putting an advertisement in newspapers for sexual abuse victims, she interviews over 200 adult candidates in order to hear them relay their experience(s) of sexual abuse* from their childhood.
We meet Samuel, an African-American policeman, in his late forties, on p.32 of the book. He describes a sexual encounter that involved oral sex with a counselor at bible camp at the age of 10. Clancy refers to this as the "normal" sexual abuse survivor as he met the objective characteristics of a victim - average age of 10 when the abuse occurred and knew his perpetrator. The significant findings in this interview, and throughout the others, are the subjective characteristics of the incident(s) do not meet her definition of "traumatic."
Her resulting thesis is, because the experience of 90% of the victims were not perceived as "traumatic" at the time the event occurred, the psychological and medical communities are doing victims a disservice by perpetuating the myth of ascribing the label "trauma". By doing so, she claims the misrepresentation of the nature of all degrees of sexual abuse as "trauma" adds additional barriers to victims actually reaching out for the help they need. In fact, many candidates for the interviews initially had to ask if they were "qualified" for the study - as in were they abused enough? This was indeed a sad, revealing fact of her research.
As a sexual abuse survivor, a term I do not laud around or wear with any sense of pride or "victim mentality", rather use when it has a stated purpose of showing personal experience with the subject matter, I find some of her conclusions erroneous while her intentions appear genuine.
First, I was struck by her viewpoint as a data collector and academic versus a trained psychologist having done years of actual fieldwork. On p.37 she writes, "And why was it not traumatic? Usually because the perpetrator was someone they knew, loved, admired and trusted...In addition, what this person asked them to do did not hurt (physically)...it was not accompanied by force or aggression."
Her basis for not seeing the events as "traumatic" is because the victims were not shocked or horrified by what happened to them when recalling the event, some had guilt about the physical enjoyment of the act, and the physical contact was not typically violent in nature (most were without penetration). Additionally, most of them described the overall feeling they had about what happened as "confusing" as they did not have the cognitive framework to understand the nature of a sexual encounter (or why they would need to keep it secret) at the age it physically occurred.
She is adamant in not equating "confusion" with "trauma".
Before I tried to refute this definition of trauma, I did more research on the nature of her data sample, to no avail. These victims did not sound as if they had processed what had happened to them or had any sense of the cause and effect relationship these events had on their lives. Simply put, they sounded very child-like in the telling of their stories, which is very natural when a traumatic memory/event has not been integrated into your overall life's framework as well as your being, body/mind/spirit. Then, when I saw Salon's interview, the answer appeared:
What was shocking to me when I started my research was the number of people who were victims of sexual abuse and hadn't told anybody before. All day long I would interview people — my whole life was surrounded by victims — and I was hearing the same thing: This is the first time I've talked about it.
What I take issue with is Clancy interviewed many people who were telling their stories for the first time, without the benefit of having any therapy. I do not think this is a representative sampling and certainly does not take into account the complex emotions which surround trauma. In some ways, she is at risk of framing it for them, which is not the job of a researcher. Additionally, in most cases, without the help of a trained professional, the full emotional picture of what occurred for each individual cannot be thoughtfully brought to light. They are viewing an unprocessed experience, which happened as a child, through child-like eyes, with an adult brain, and with an adult’s rationalization.
Clancy seems to loosely interchange the adjective "traumatic" with the medical definition of "trauma."
This book feels more like a political agenda to upend the establishment of years of psychological and medical practices which have been effectual, especially recent advancements with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder therapy modalities such as EMDR, which helped to heal my life and many other survivors I know, all over a very narrow definition of what trauma is and when it actually occurs. While I realize that sells books, I don't think it helps victims, especially when the controversy it stirs up causes more confusion rather than clarity.
A summary conclusion of her findings is as follows, "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 (p.185)"
Since she did not follow this control group through their process of getting help and beyond, I fail to see how she comes to such a concise conclusion? I am left to conclude she fundamentally does not understand the nature of trauma and her time of doing actual psychological fieldwork is not well versed.
What I did find altruistic and relevant about her work is she has uncovered a gaping hole in educating people about what trauma actually IS. Instead of attacking the definition, I think more education about the breadth and scope of the definition is in order. It isn't the medical establishment who needs to be reigned in; it is our society which needs to be armed with the proper information to identify abuse for what it is.
I sincerely commend her on uncovering this – it is nice to see what I have always suspected in print. Minimizing any type of abuse, because it wasn't "violent enough" or because "I didn't resist" or because "it felt good" is very damaging to the psyche. A targeted campaign to address these fallacies would be beneficial to a nation with an estimated 45 million sexual abuse victims: 1 in 5 women, 1 in 10 men (p.1).
What I did thoroughly enjoy about Clancy is her chutzpah. At the end of her interview with Salon, she had to this to say:
"What the fuck is wrong with all of these men? Sexual abuse is not women; it's men. Every once in a while a woman will sexually abuse, but in 95 percent of cases it's a man that is known to the child — a teacher, a friend, a family member. These are high-functioning people in society who are choosing to molest children. All this focus on the psychology of the victim is a way to sidestep this central question: What is going on in society that so many men are choosing to get off on small children? I can find almost no studies on the subject. People will go into jails and interview a perpetrator, but most of these people don't go to jail, and most of them aren't caught."
While I don't think men are the only issue, I will echo her in a collective WTF about the lack of studies as to why our society is so predatory?
We need answers.
Overall, I would not recommend this book. It is medically unsound and lacks the thorough scientific study required to support her conclusions.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
*All interview applicants were adults, who were abused as children at an average age of 10, and all perpetrators were over age 18. Abuse was defined as sexual contact ranging from genital touching, oral/genital contact, vaginal or anal intercourse.
© 2010 Sparking. All Rights Reserved.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Cranky Cuss
Catherine Forsythe
toritto
anna1liese
familyonbikes
Emily Rapp
Salon.com
Comments
>>And why was it not traumatic? Usually because the perpetrator was someone they knew, loved, admired and trusted...In addition, what this person asked them to do did not hurt...it was not accompanied by force or aggression.
Bonnie - It is amazing the amount abused and the very few who are arrested. I believe much of this had to do with how the laws were changed during the 80s on how children are questioned, and then, the limitations of when you can prosecute after your abuse occurs. In my state, after you pass 21, all bets are off on childhood abuse. The reason, as quoted in the legislative record, "we would simply be overwhelmed by the number of allegations."
Studman - I will respect your privacy - but feel free to say what is on your mind here. As long as it is your opinion, who can fault you for that?
ljturner66 - "the quote to me indicates a real lack of understanding about how trauma impacts when the abuseer is someone that you love, admire, trust, and in my case, depend on. It was those factors much more than the details of the abuse that traumatized me and continue to create problems for me now." Yes! Of the vast number of survivors I have spoken with, this is the feedback I get and is my own experience as well.
She seems to limit her idea of "trauma" to the physical act during the event(s) in question. She dismisses the idea of emotional trauma, thinking it only appears later (whose to say when it showed up, what is the baseline?), let alone any neurological/processor damage happening at the time the event occurs.
I commend her motivation, just not the direction she took it.
So if we're afraid to tell anyone of an "event" why would it be considered not trauma? Even when I was 7 years old I knew that what happened was wrong -- I didn't understand it, but I FELT it was bad.
And the concluding question is worthy of more research -- have you considered taking that on yourself?
I'm very confused by this as well. My experience with friends who have been used sexually as children (whether it was perceived as "traumatic" at the time or not) is that the event always seems to come back and bite them in the ass later in their lives. I don't know if it happens because as adults, they suddenly see that what was done to them is not appropriate adult behaviour, they suddenly perceive the betrayal of trust, or what, but so few of my friends who experienced this have gotten through it unscathed.
Since I haven't read the book, I can't comment further on the author's thesis, but your analysis seems spot-on and insightful. Thank you.
I think a lot of men are suffering with problems that aren't addressed because of this hush hush stigma too. Problems that might be treatable. Thank you, Sparking.
My second comment is that the very “child-like” telling of the tale is an obvious marker for a reality that most of us who have worked in the field have observed: in a significant percentage of cases, emotional maturation STOPS at precisely the point when the original offense occurred. This corresponds with the fact that the emotional development of addicts and alcoholics also stop at the point where the addiction takes over their lives.
This is typical, academic, arrogant bullshit (hers, not yours):
“A summary conclusion of her findings is as follows, "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”
This paragraph is stunningly stupid. An event that causes harm many years after the event is the precise definition of a post-traumatic event, a term I have always hated because, for the traumatized individual, the trauma is continuously continuing.
I'm accustomed only to your more personal musings. I was impressed by your command of the more academic voice you adopted here.
Your article is brilliant.
Still - I hope you can return the book and get a refund. I think Dr. Clancy is cynically building a career on making blatant attacks on common sense.
She can't really be that dense - can she?
It overlooks the inherent emotional trauma in an interrupted belief system - and while this manifests differently in each person, the assumption that it is not trauma due to the lack of violent physical incidents they are recalling played out, and they remember it later as "confusing", is simply not convincing. It was a red flag for me and why I went looking for information on her control group - many of them had not processed their abuses, they were to raw to say anything but what someone in arrested emotional state would say, "confused". It skews the subjectivity of the research data.
It really seems she has a very narrow, limited idea of what trauma is. And, to create this new myth by her book: "The professional assumptions about the nature of childhood trauma can harm victims by reinforcing these feelings. Survivors are thus victimized not only by their abusers but also by the industry dedicated to helping them." It is her assumptions about professionals assumptions which seem to be the issue here.
We simply need to bring more education to the forefront and expand the definition of trauma, not limit it erroneously.
As for the last question, yes, I have, a 1,000 times. To be honest, I already know some of the answers, and they are gut-wrenching. I don't know if I'm up for it.
Mary - I assure you, she has been pummeled with those concerns. In fact she has received threats. I do not think her intention is to bring light to these heinous acts, in fact quite the opposite, but her method is causing more confusion rather than harmony.
She attacks the definition, and as you say, "Being sexually abused and betrayed by an adult (that a child should be able to trust) should be viewed as extremely mentally and physically traumatic." She focuses mainly on the physical, and because the adult recalling the story, as I said in a child-like, traumatized state, with a now adult brain and adult rationalizing capabilities, they describe it as not feeling threatening as much as "confusing". This one word, and the lack of physical horror in the retelling (often for the first time), signifies it is not trauma in her view.
She thinks if we don't call it trauma, more people will get help. I think if we expand the education of what trauma is, more people will get help. As many come out with "traumatic" diagnosis, like Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, there is no need to recreate the wheel.
It is a false controversy.
mypsyche - ""Confusion" is a mask for a bundle of emotions in which words may be hard to find." Exactly. I read that and I had read flags going up all over the place. I remember being there myself! These are simply people who do not know how this event has impacted their lives yet - and to put a false time frame as to when the trauma "showed" up, when they haven't processed through this, is leading at best.
OE - In her defense, I don't think this is her intention. However, I can't rule out the idea of what sells books to the masses. To take away the label of "trauma" from any victim does upset the balance which feminists fought long and hard to get for all these victims. I think her energy is misplaced.
Scanner - me either! She thinks by labeling the less violent acts, like touching and oral sex, where the child didn't feel threatened at the time (more confused), that using the word trauma is counterproductive. Moreover, the medical establishment is actually victimizing the victims further by using this label, as it prevents those with less "violent" acts from knowing they have been abused.
It all boils down to education, education, education. This is hard stuff to talk about in the first place, so bravo for her getting the conversation started, however misplaced.
Bonnie - thanks! Its nice to have a cheerleader.
fingerlakeswanderer - thank you. Yes, I do not know anyone who has come through unscathed either, no matter how they may try to find ways to cope instead of heal. Once you have healed yourself, it is pretty identifiable in others. I appreciate I can only present snippets of her book here, but while I think her intentions were good, I believe she took the wrong tact based on data points versus knowledge of the actual inter workings of trauma on the body/mind/spirit.
Also, you hit on a great point, many people do not deal with these issues until they are older, usually when it becomes too painful to not do so any longer. The old saying, "we work at the speed of pain." She ascribes the trauma as actually happening later when that pain point comes - then the "trauma" appears. I find this totally erroneous and was the flag for why I thought the control group must be off. After you process trauma, it is easy to see the many different ways it affected you, even at the time it occurred. Just because you don't know recognize it as you are going along, does not mean it didn't have a traumatic effect on you. Thanks for coming by!
Anita - Absolutely!
Dave - thanks for your support in me taking this topic head on! Yes, the whole penis and vagina discussion makes most adults giggle and wince in America. It still amazes me. They would cringe if they came to my house - my 7 year old is probably more comfortable than most adults. We just need to keep talking about it.
Amanda - Yes! Again, another great comment and aspect to this issue. Men. There are so many abused men in this country who do not have voices yet. It helps so much for their to be more examples. A good friend of mine was a test pilot for over 30 years and he has made a lot of headway in helping support groups pop up around this issue in my area.
Is this what she researched? Were professionals "reinforcing these feelings" and were the abused "victimized" by the industry, or is this an assumption that she made?
Let me add here that my partner was sexually abused for years at the hands of her grandfather and her brother. I am not in any way in favor of sexually abusing children. If the taboo is what makes child sexual abuse traumatic rather than the event itself, it doesn't mean that we should toss aside the taboo; the results are the same. Any way you slice it, sexual abuse of children is harmful.
I was raped by a "friend" as a young adult (age 18), but because I didn't really know what "respectable sex" was like at the time and didn't get that I had been raped, it didn't occur to me to feel traumatized. Our perceptions matter SO MUCH in matters like this that it is perhaps impossible to tell whether the event or the perception of the event is the cause.
1. Foremost, I think Clancy's argument is a semantic one. Perhaps she's exactly right that "trauma" is not quite the right word to use on an event in which intense negative emotion (or whatever the clinical definition of trauma is) isn't present. I find her premise interesting and agree with your point about chutzpah; political correctness has no place in the academic world, and I'm glad she wasn't cowed by it.
2. Her basis for not seeing the events as traumatic is because the victims were not shocked or horrified by what happened to them when recalling the event, and the physical harm was not typically violent in nature... This made my mind wander to slavery in the American South. The experience of many slaves was simply the way they lived, the way they were raised, how things were. They were treated all right, without perhaps the beatings and narrow escapes and threats of some others. I suppose some people were born and died as slaves and never knew any different and didn't have "trauma" the way that some did. But their enslavement was itself an abomination, whether any particular slave escaped trauma or not. In the same way, sexual molestation is an abomination, whether it is aggressive or painful. So, yeah, it kind of feels weird and wrong to be making this distinction that Clancy's making, like "Some molestation is traumatic and some isn't, and it depends on what the victim's feelings are at the time." And yet, I guess this kind of hair-splitting is what academics do, and that doesn't make it inaccurate, again if we are focusing on the semantics issue.
3. As for Lorraine's comment about friends for whom the molestation seems to define them as adults, it occurred to me that the same could be said of other things like divorce of parents. I use that example b/c I have a friend who is clearly defined by the divorce of her parents. This friend is 48 years old, and it's clear that her parents divorce--she was a teenager at the time--plays a central role in her self-esteem, her parenting, her marriage. I've noticed it and even commented on it many times. So, is divorce "traumatic"? I don't know, maybe it depends on the individual. Which then seems to support Clancy's position.
4. I'm not sure I agree with your take on the unprocessed interviews, the idea that Clancy is talking to these people before they talk to therapists. A part of me would rather see a trained numbers person, a skilled interviewer with a research bias, talk to them before a therapist gets to them. But I think our view of therapists, too, comes from personal experience, and it sounds like your experience is more positive than mine.
I just want to scream. This woman is educated? Sigh.
Maybe I'm just confused about what this book is all about.
This was a very informative/educational post for me. Thanks.
In fact it took years to fully understand what really happened and what the imapct was. And no it is not because I accepted everything that therapists or books told me. In fact I fought against that and tried to pretend that "it wasn't that bad". Though I will say that given his cruel manner, I ultimately found the emotional & psychological abuse to be far more traumatic than the sexual abuse, and it does bother me when people insist that the sexual abuse is the most traumatic thing that happened to me. Therapists don't do that though, laypeople do. Now here this author is doing the opposite. Both such endeavors suck. No one gets to define my issues but me.
Yep. You got it, right there.
Thanks for your hard work on this piece. I appreciate your thoughtful commentary.
As for those decrying her statistical methods, I think she does a good job explaining that her numbers match up precisely with other studies and also that her study is similar in scope to others in the field.
I think people should follow Sparking's link and read the interview. I'm curious about others' take after that.
Carole - Thank you, very kind. There is much more I would like to discuss, but one blog post is all I could squeeze in.
David - I sent you a PM asking why you thought this was framed as men vs. women, or either or, as that was sincerely not my intent. But, I want to keep up with the comments, so I am going to guess you are referring to her last remark and not about my response to the book?
The reason I echo her WTF is because of the study issue, this point right here, "What is going on in society that so many men are choosing to get off on small children? I can find almost no studies on the subject." The truth is, in terms of pedophilia, which is the scope of this piece, the abusers are primarily men. These are just facts - I don't think it needs to be about men vs. women and is certainly not a stance I support.
First, because it is a cycle. Even if men are more likely to become an abuser, it is an issue, hell an epidemic, which we need to face collectively to solve. What is alarming is why are there not more arrests around these crimes? What feeds this? Whoever the perpetrator is, the best chances we have seen at rehabilitation have been in confined facilities through our DSHS systems. While, I don't agree with her idea that, "all this focus on the psychology of the victim is a way to sidestep this central question", I think the question still needs to be answered.
Hitler, serial killers and sociopaths and that type of abuse is outside the scope of her book and my piece - although I am familiar with it. Another day.
Karin - "A massive loss of trust in such a way is devastating, especially when the magnitude of what's happened to the victim begins to make sense." Exactly. When the magnitude begins to process through, you see how the trauma was there all along - you just didn't identify it as such.
For me, it was a relief, things begin to make sense. Initially, I was numb and didn't think anything that happened was a big deal. It took years to tear that down. The brain is powerful that way; it is our best friend in protecting us until such time we are safe enough to process through things.
Sage - Thank you for the compliment. This is actually my comfortable voice - business, analytical. I finally broke it out for OS! Who knew!
I really appreciate your view on the data collection piece, which is something I can only hint at. I do not have experience with this, I just saw the fallacy in the interpretations glaringly and her Salon interview brought some things to light. You make excellent points.
"in a significant percentage of cases, emotional maturation STOPS at precisely the point when the original offense occurred." Exactly! A trained psychologist would know this!? Yet, I think her angst in the last comment I quoted, is revealing more now, as she is saying the focus of the medical establishment on the victim is a way of sidestepping the question, why aren't more men locked up? This is striking me as very odd now. Why can't we pay equal attention to both sides of this issue. I see the need to bring more attention to what she has raised, but not at the expense of not dealing with the affects of trauma.
I know, she classically defines PTSD several times, and then tries to refute its validity. Thanks so much for your input!
reluctant muse - no, none of us do. You won't get an argument from me that we all react differently. However, recreating trauma into something it isn't, a non-event, as clearly some sort of arrested development is going to occur no matter the nature of the abuse, is just not a wise use of resources in my view. Education is a better use. Thanks for weighing in!
Stellaa - I already PM'd you. Another brain junkie, of which I am also. The science around sexuality and neuroplasticity of the brain is fascinating. Interruption of that by abuse, in all its form, is a key indicator that trauma occurs at the time of the event. Yes, we are just on the cutting edge. It wasn't until the mid 90s that the paradigm shifted that we are not as hardwired as was previously thought by the scientific community. It seem science catches up with what is being seen in the field all the time.
OWL! - Thanks for the kind words. Yes, Clancy definitely makes some relative points, I just think her direction is off.
Patrick - you are welcome!
trauma queen - great name! love it! Luckily I have a great 1/2 priced book store.
Caroline - thank you so much.
...next please - yes, this final comment is striking me much differently as I read it now, too. I was focused on the study piece, trying to give her some wiggle room, but she does contradict her own premise time and time again, doesn't she?
Compassion and love for all in this equation is what is needed. The numbers are what are staggering to me.
I would latter re-enter on the physical plane, and learn a couple of other life learning stratergies, such as how to seduce your neighbor, with out being known. The neighbor in question, wanted to make duragatory comments about my mother a no-no. At a young age, I had a protective sense about her being and her ability to stand strong. With that, I became a willing subject, to cause his black mail, to his careless and negligent attitudes towards first my mother, second to his non-suspecting wife, and thirdly to his stupidity, I sensed that he would take the bait, but of course, at my expense.
Calmly, one day while his wife was out working, I presumed the little girl next door, to my utter horror I was lucky they didn't hang a "little wolf next door" on my head. I preceded to gain his confidence, and start a innocent conversation. I was great at portraying very innocent subjects to get to my point, such as The Mary Tyler Moore Show, which he didn't like, which pissed me off even more, but I allready suspected that, how would a male chauvinist pig want to see women advance? With that, he was reading a magazine or something on a recliner, as he had come home from work, and I started to ask some pretty formative questions regarding the sexual orientation or something to the effect of the male sex organ. Well, bingo, the douche' bag responded with pulling out his you know what, and asking a very curious kid, if she wanted to you know what with it. I still think back to this, as feeling tainted. That is the sad part of this relevation, my pure force behind the action was in his stupidity to just conceptulaize a poor choice of words abdicating that my mother was some type of fool, and I avenged the best way I knew how. He provoked a sense of utter contempt, as to certain beliefs that I am not good at taking. I took offense, and was not playing, he should be responsible for his words, and his actions, and I wanted him to throughly understand that.
Children that have sexual experience before it occurs to them naturally to initiate sexual contact have their innocence taken from them by those who have little respect for its role in the healthy development of an individual. The interruption of that innocence is traumatic and I would be surprised that there could ever be any doubt about such a loss.
I too was molested as a kid. There are members of the family who still think I made it up, as if I didn't have anything better to do.
What if these people that Clancy encountered--and she supposes that there are droves of them, that some majorly huge proportion of the population out there have been abused/molested in some way--had not run into her and ended up never talking about their abusive past at all? Is there any chance, according to conventional wisdom, that they can lead normal lives? It seems to me that if there are so many people with this past out there, some of them, many in fact, must be just living out their lives according to what most of us call "normal." I'm thinking now of a friend whose husband died when her kids were 3 and 5. Everybody told her she should put them in therapy, but she said, "First, do no harm," saying she wanted to wait and see if there were any apparently horrible traumatic effects before she signed them up to talk about it and dwell on it. They never did have therapy and for all the world appear to be normal, productive citizens (one's an attorney, the other a police officer; both have steady girlfriends and all appears to be well.) I'm sorry my examples are things outside the realm of abuse; as I mentioned, I don't have direct experience with it, although I assume "it's all around me" as Clancy says, just that people aren't talking about it. But I go back to Leslie's fundamentally provocative question: Are they not talking about it because they are so deeply traumatized by the event itself or are they not talking about it because their own experience flies in the face of the way our culture has framed it?
The thing is, according to the definition of Trauma by the industry, they didn't go through a PTSD type of trauma. By forcing them into a situation where they have to deal with the event as if it were painful and shocking /at the time/ , instead of something confusing which they later found repulsive, they further the feeling of guilt, shame, self-disgust and depression. They ask, Why did I not try to stop it? Why did I not realize what is happening? Something must be wrong with me. The molester chose me because they saw I was a dirty disgusting child. They betrayed me because my entire childhood I thought they were my friend, but they were using me for sexual gain, knowing I didn't understand it. Clancy argues this takes a different type of treatment to heal, not the immediate PTSD treatment, or dealing with the memories of the actual event, but more dealing with the aftermath and the point where an adult mind realized the horror of what happened. I think it is a very important look into a /specific kind/ of molestation. And it does not represent, in any way, all kinds, or what each person goes through. Each sexual abuse a child goes through is very different for that child, and Clancy is pointing to the fact that we need to recognize that.
But she repeats that any child who has gone through any type of sexual abuse, be it violent or confusing, has gone through something which has long-term damage and is a disgusting, troubling experience that is very hard to heal from.
I want to start off by saying your article is very well written. I missed that earlier, for which I apologize. While I disagree with what you took from the book, I think you wrote a very interesting intelligent review.
The best way I can think of to explain non-violent sexual abuse against children is this. Imagine when you are six, you mother comes to tell you that your friend Sally has died. Now, you know what she has told you is important, but you don't understand why. You spend the next few months asking if Sally can come over to play, if she has returned yet, when she is coming back, if she took her dog with her when she died. A child doesn't understand loss yet, that death is forever. At one point as you age, you remember your mom telling you about Sally's death, and it hits you that Sally is dead forever. Gone. That is when the grief really hits. Before was a wash of confusion but it wasn't traumatic at the time. When you realize, down the line, that Sally died and what that means, that moment when you mom tells you becomes traumatic. Before it was strange, then you understand and suddenly everything about that moment in your life has shifted and becomes intensely painful and horrific. For me, that is non-violent child abuse. When you trust your abuser, when they have you do things but you don't get why. You walk away confused, but can't process much more.
If you go through a violent experience as a child, when you know it is wrong and you want it to stop, that is trauma at the time. It would be as if you saw Sally when she died in a car wreck. You walk away with PTSD and are very hurt.
When it comes to how a therapist deals with child abuse, they need to take these different types into account. If you ask the patient how they felt at the time their Mom told them Sally died, they will say confused. They kept waiting for Sally to come back, get home from school, and didn't know why people were upset. If you ask them how they feel about the moment that their mom told them Sally died today, they would say it was horrific, and painful, and they have had a hard time dealing with close relationships since because of a fear of loss (or however it manifests). This requires a certain direction from the therapist. The moment of Mom telling Child is the moment of trauma, but it isn't the time the feeling of trauma hit. It was impossible for it to be traumatic at the time, because the child doesn't understand what occured. So you have to process the emotions of looking back, realizing it, the guilt that for a year you didn't mourn Sally because you didn't understand, etc.
If you are dealing with the Child who say Sally die violently, you need a very different type of approach to handle that pain.
Both situation are very, very damaging. But they happened very differently, and it is important therapists approach this in ways that help the patient. If the therapist in the first situation insists on treating the Child as if the child, in the moment, had terrible emotions regarding the situation it isn't going to work. The patient is going to feel guilty for not hurting at the time and the shame will be compounded. If the therapist instead works on how the moment was confusing, and the moment when the patient realized it was trauma, and help them deal with the guilt for not mourning at the time, it can help prevent shame and distress and guilt.
sophie h - I am so thankful you found something here.
ttfn - this is a conclusion she made as a result of her findings - it was not the nature of the study itself. She has had her hands in the "repressed memory" controversy before this, on the side which gets you called an abuser for claiming the memories are not repressed - or potentially false (in terms of her control group, alien abductees, 11 of them) - or, a function of a different type of memory - just forgetting. She has been trashed for having a political bent against the establishment, but I think she is really trying to see new insights into the data, I just don't support her findings or see the need to do so. More often than not, she is describing a "post-traumatic" recollection and then not calling it trauma. It's semantics in an effort to insure people get more exposure to knowing they were abused - just not "traumatized."
It is all about education, and the support the victims ultimately need is the same.
Leslie - "I have often wondered if our beliefs about subjects like this--in this case, the belief that sex with children is wrong and harms people for a lifetime--might be more of the reason why it is so traumatic than the event itself."
Which will also speak to Lainey's point of many people bringing up the shame/confusion surrounding "only" being violated in a minimal way (i.e. oral sex), if the way it felt was appreciated by the victim, and if so, the wrestling the victim does with did they then participate/are they potentially to blame?
Yes, in some cases, this absolutely does contribute to the problem of victims coming forward, but I do not believe it contributes to the nature of the trauma. The anticipation of the fallout of what may happen in a victims particular circumstance can certainly be traumatizing to ruminate on. I don't know of a way to evaluate if it is "more" damaging, until you have a control group who has been evaluated pre/mid/post therapy and that would be astonishingly hard. However, it still doesn't mitigate the fact it is still "traumatizing" to the child at the time the event occurs, for all the reasons previously stated. The reaction of the adults while telling this, and 'shame' which may/or may not (as Sage pointed out) prevented them from speaking before, is part of the delayed response of a traumatized individual. It's classic.
She has found a segment of the population who does not know they were abused. This is incredibly useful information. I simply do not agree it is about changing the paradigm of when trauma occurred as much as it is about expanding the idea of what trauma is.
What paralyzes each one of us is individual - what frees us is information. There is no way the taboo doesn't add to the stigma, and can be traumatic as well, but to deny the event as traumatic is denying an overwhelming majority of science which suggests specifically how to treat someone who is traumatized - and it's working.
I am sorry for your encounter. I think you said something really important - you didn't know to "feel traumatized" - however, this isn't to deny that you weren't. The important word I read is feel. I went through the same thing. And, after integrating the trauma back into the narrative of my life, I could see all the affects the event had from the time it occurred forward. The feelings came "post" event, as it is a delayed reaction of trauma, of stress. The beliefs I uncovered for myself were never about "I'm afraid to not get help" or "I'll be damaged for my lifetime" as significant road blocks, it was more about not wanting to feel the inevitability of the pain. Of all the people I've known, supported, and worked with through their recoveries, this is the general response I get to.
I hope that was clear. Thank you for all of your comments.
Donna - how sweet of you to say. Yes, shooting light into the darkness! I was so grateful to Salon for this interview. I like to read the interviews before doing book reviews - this dashed my last attempt at a book review - the Adderall Diaries. The interview crushed it for me! Couldn't do it.
Lainey - I answered some of your point in my response to Leslie, fyi.
1. It is semantics and the intense emotions comes later - hence the "post", in post-traumatic stress disorder. It has to be processed through.
2. If you never get outside stimulus to know the horror of the life you were living through, it doesn't mean it wasn't horrific. She is speaking to people who have been altered by the very thing she is trying to redefine - without the it being processed back into their being. They are traumatized sitting there, they just don't know it. When it occurred, was when it happened. Just because they can't describe it as such simply is a reflection of unprocessed trauma.
3. I don't see Lorraine's comment? Yes, divorce can be traumatic. It lacks the physical component, so it is going to play out differently in the brain.
4. Okay, I understand.
J.K. - Thanks so much! I appreciate the support!
Gwendolyn - Thank you. I hope its been cleared up. She believes the retrospective interpretation that is traumatizing - not the actual event which the victim encountered (because of their responses when being interviewed). While it is a bit about semantics, she is also overlooking that she is likely speaking to someone in a post-traumatic state, which comes with a host of symptoms.
Grif - Thank you!
Ablonde - I value the work, not so much the conclusions. We have a segment of the population which we need to get information to. Thanks for your comment!
ClarkK - Agreed. The analysis is what bothers me, too. The findings are golden.
Robin! - YES! I want to know the answer to that, too. Especially in light of her answer in to the last question on the Salon interview. David helped me look at that through a different lens. It felt like there was a lot of anger there!
With that, I need to sign off for awhile. Got to take care of the kiddo. Thank you everyone, immensely, for your questions and contributions.
"By forcing them into a situation where they have to deal with the event as if it were painful and shocking /at the time/ , instead of something confusing which they later found repulsive, they further the feeling of guilt, shame, self-disgust and depression."
Eric, It is the identification process which seems to be in question. While each therapist is an individual, I do not believe she has hit on anything new here, by saying don't force people to look at those things in this or that way. A good therapist would not force a client to do that - ever.
As someone who did have a violent traumatic pass, I wasn't approached by any of the therapists I encountered to look at my trauma through that lens of "this was painful and shocking at the time." That is simply not how the process works? It is a self-emergent process - and one in which EMDR has revolutionized for a lot of people.
I appreciate your points, but we disagree. Having been through the process, facing those feelings are exactly what helps a person heal when it comes to them to do so, and challenging those beliefs, are exactly what helps a person heal, when it comes to them to do so. A good therapist will not force anything, ever.
Each person is different, and there are a number of modalities which help, and can be used interchangeably. I believe she has created a false controversy.
I appreciate your input.
I swore that I'd not comment. I'm so behind. You can skip.
Hop.
Cartwheel.
Yell, phew.
Sit in pew.
Pew's sits.
Pew good.
I do mean?
You are a Abnormal Psych class.
Yes. I seek help for all relatives.
I've not known sexual traumas.
Ay, trauma can stifle openness.
Thank Ya that Ya are Sparking.
You aren't no litigation lawyer.
If You were? I'd red-flag a EP.
If You no delete this ...Oh ah!
It's like when a kid falls down and looks at the parent for the parent's reaction: if the parent reacts calmly, the kid probably will, too, but if the parent freaks out, most likely so will the child.
The problem with sexual abuse is a problem with the abuse of one's own personal power, perpetrated upon another. If we focus on that, we can work to solve sexual abuse. Instead, we focus on how victimized the victim was, which in some cases can make the victim feel like a victim for the rest of his or her life. (Indeed, the subtext of telling a victim how victimized he or she was seems to be that he or she is now damaged goods for life.)
Americans seem to under-react or over-react. How about some middle ground, some sanity, where sexual abuse is concerned?
It needs to be prevented, but at the same time we don't need to over-react and create damage that wouldn't have been there had we not over-reacted.
Firstly, I think everyone should read the interview before condemning Ms. Clancy, because many of you seem to be missing her point. She is NOT saying that because the abuse wasn't "traumatic" it wasn't damaging, she is saying the opposite. She IS saying that society's insistence on defining sexual abuse as a violent, traumatic act prevents many victims of abuse from both recognizing their experience as abuse and seeking the help they need.
The "lynch mob" mentality towards Ms. Clancy is precisely what has kept me from coming forward my entire life.
My "abuse" if we must call it that, was extremely subtle. And the most damaging part about it was the arousal that I experienced, accompanied by the subsequent knowledge that I wasn't supposed to feel it. I have spent most of my life blaming myself. It must be my fault because I was turned on. If I was "normal" I would have felt disgusted, so I must be bad.
I am exactly the kind of person Ms. Clancy is talking about and I, for one, am grateful to her for writing the book, and I'll be getting a copy ASAP.
One more thing. My "abuser" was my mother. That makes it all the more difficult to deal with. Her "abuse" was rarely physical but always very sexual and provocative. I disagree with the notion that the abuser is nearly always male. I believe that women are very capable of having inappropriate sexual behavior toward children, they are just much more subtle about it so it rarely gets defined as such.
Enough said.
I saw a PA country road sign.
deer butchering and storage.
my that sign elicited sad tear.
I recall talking to one mensch.
Respectfully,
I am not making light nor tease?
Trauma is trauma. Pain is pain.
I was jarred into the realization.
She said`gentile. He? genitalia?
Ya used `yiddish. You gracious.
You can't silent Ya Muse. Thanks.
I'm looking forward to Valentines.
You are as funny as anyone @ O.S.
You suck Ya lovers thumb. Heehaw.
That's not bad to write if` Innocents.
I hesitate to use the term "survivor" because I was not in mortal danger, and I don't like the term "victim" either (at least as as a name for myself), because I don't like to empower my attacker by embracing the mantle of victimhood.
Iconoclastic authors can provide valuable insights, and I think there may be a kernel of truth to the notion that some victims suffer more psychological consequences than others.
However, I flatly disagree that a legal paradigm should be established based on the notion that one type of abuse is less insidious than another.
In some ways, I was exactly the kid she describes in her research. I have always been a high achiever and would never stick out of a crowd as a victim.
Yet I would say that I have had near-death experiences which were less traumatic. You don't think constantly about the time you almost died in a car wreck.
My own experience was that as a ten-year-old, I was taken by a person who I trusted (and who I desperately wanted as a friend) held me against my will and had his way with me for a few hours. I did not know what anal sex was before then, and I wasn't really sure what it meant for a long time afterward. Yet I felt worse that day than I have ever felt in my life. I felt so guilty and ashamed that I told no one for months of nightmares which I attempted to suppress with masochistic behavior (some physical-traces of this self-abuse linger to this day) . Eventually, I learned to repress the memory, but it was always there, dissolving my self confidence like acid.
Self-medicating by numbing my emotions with pot after age 14, It took me about 15 years before I was emotionally mature enough to get a girlfriend, let alone maintain a relationship with one.
Yes, had she interviewed me at the right time in my life, my statement would have reinforced her opinion that it was not exactly traumatic. I would have been lying to her the same way I was lying to myself all those years.
wakingupslowly - you are welcome, I appreciate your appreciation!
Lady Dove - when ever I see your pretty avatar, I imagine you are whispering for some reason. You are welcome.
Lainey - I hope I answered all your questions and I am assuming people do read the links. Certainly molestation, in terms of being fondled by a trusted confidant (which can also take away the fear/add to feelings of guilt about telling), which is more often the case, whether you are a boy or a girl, in a way which naturally feels good, versus penetrated for intercourse, by an adult male, either vaginally or anally, is going to feel different to a child both physically and emotionally.
There are a number of different factors which go into how it can contribute to how it manifests in someone's life:
Age(s) of abuse
Who was abuser - if it was a parent/sibling
Number of occurrences
Frequency
Duration
How it was handled when/if they told
Degree
and more...
I made some assumptions what people here did/did not know. I wasn't personally going to go here, but I have survived both types of trauma, and I still find the relevancy to be about the solution, not how to define the problem. I can see where victims are discouraged with social stigma and lay people not understanding what goes into this problem, but Clancy's characterization of the medical community's approach to this is mind-blowing to me. I have worked with a multitude of therapists in my lifetime, as well as my daughter's therapist(s), and worked with many other people and their therapist(s), and it has been the rare exception that the issue lies there.
I can not more resoundingly agree with her that the issue lies in education, and ensuring that potential victims know their is adequate and qualified help available, now. Nothing needs to be reinvented.
Let me know if I left anything out!
Kathy! - Thank you so much! That means a lot!
Leslie - Agreed. :)
MOMSACOMIC - My heart goes out to you. Thank you for this brave share. It is respected and honored.
Robin - thank you again for another great contribution. Much appreciated!
Susanne! - THANK YOU! "that they were in fact changed in ways they may not have consciously chosen for themselves." Yes, this is something I felt was overlooked, too. Innocence is a key component, especially in the earlier ages of development, when sexual identity is so unformed. I watched my daughter go through this, it is heart-breaking. I appreciate your thoughts here.
Natalie - I understand my dear, and I find it the most abhorrent reaction to something so deeply traumatizing. My sincerest apology. I appreciate your share here.
fernsy - yes, the naming and politicizing seem to have an entire mind set of their own, great point. I know many practicing counselors (and all the titles there in), who have no idea what the DSM even means. It's a common joke amongst the profession. I honor your mom's choice, we all need to find our own way. Thanks for the comment.
MOMSACOMIC - "and for perpertrators to be able to speak about what is their driving force, behind a rather sorbid often sardonic back ground." Yes, we are definitely not there yet, either. It does cross a line when you go into the world of child abuse, the innocence lost, the hush tones ensue. I appreciate Clancy's book for that purpose alone - let's talk about it! This is an epidemic, many are living silently, why are we not talking? Great input.
Eri - Sorry I got your name wrong earlier. Thank you again for your opinion - I really do appreciate it.
ART! - Abnormal Psych class." Ah, yes, I resemble that statement! :)
sacrob - I understand your example, and I'm sorry that happened to you. I imagine that would happen if everyone was saying that to you , I'm glad that wasn't your case. In my experience, the opposite has been true, most people have the "hurry up and get over it" mentality. I believe survivors experiences are probably as varied as the abuses that happen. I agree, a middle road is the best place, but I don't think that is up to any establishment to decide, I believe it is best left up to the individual and for information to be available. Thanks for your comment.
BTW - her study focused on abuse between a child and an adult over 18.
telsum1 - thank you very much for weighing in. Yes, that is how I read her interview as well - except one key thing. She is saying it is the Medical Establishment perpetuating this insistence that it must be violent/etc. I emphatically disagree with this.
However, I emphatically agree with you that society perpetuate's this idea, causing the gap for people who don't recognize their
Others may not like her already due to her reputation over repressed memories, she is already controversial. Everyone has a right to their opinion.
She has definitely identified a great number of a population who do not identify their experience as abuse - which is a critical component to come out of this study.
Thank you very much for weighing in. Yes, that is how I read her interview as well - except one key thing. She IS saying it is the Medical Establishment perpetuating this insistence that it must be violent/etc. I emphatically disagree with this. My issue with her book lies around this notion, and the lack of recognition of this type of abuse that you describe is actually "trauma". The interviews she outlines shows very traumatized people describing their memories, much like yours. It doesn't have to be violent to be considered a "traumatic" medical diagnosis.
However, I emphatically agree with you that society perpetuates the idea it must be violent to be abuse, causing the gap for people who don't recognize their encounter as abuse and get the help that they need.
I just helped a girlfriend identify this for a son just two months ago. I understand the dilemma.
Others may not like her already due to her reputation over repressed memories, she is already controversial. Everyone has a right to their opinion.
She has definitely identified a great number of a population who do not identify their experience as abuse - which is a critical component to come out of this study. I do not throw the baby out with the bathwater if you will.
I hope you do get her book! I think it does have important data and may help you identify a therapist who might be right for you if you are interested in going that route. I am so sorry it was incestuous in nature, that is heart-wrenching. I was abused by both my parents sexually, so I do understand.
You are not alone and I supremely appreciate your honesty and coming forward. This is a difficult topic and bound to stir up a lot of feelings. Best Wishes!
Art - "Trauma is trauma. Pain is pain." Yes my friend. Yes. Healing for all.
Indiana Joe - I am so proud of the men of OS today. Wow.
"However, I flatly disagree that a legal paradigm should be established based on the notion that one type of abuse is less insidious than another." I strongly agree as well.
Wow, that is a lot of work to incorporate. Yes, anal intercourse is very painful, I always cringe when I know males have been abused by intercourse.
I have had a near death experience or two, and you are right, they don't level up the same way. It is amazing the invasiveness such an act has on one's development.
Thank you for your visit and contributions. I greatly appreciate it.
I remember a woman who was raped and complained about her therapist. She said that the therapist kept saying that this would ruin her life, and she, the victim, finally decided that the rapist actually had the problem. Look what he reduced himself to doing? She actually almost felt sorry for him. She would not let her life be ruined. I want to agree with her. Her life wasn't ruined, but he did give her a mountain to climb.
There was research done a couple of years ago about whether veterans coming back from Iraq and Afghanistan who had been diagnosed with PTSD actually had PTSD. I think you're absolutely right about there being a political agenda in terms of turning back the clock on all the good work that has been done on trauma. As for this author she seems, from your review, to discard the fact that trauma is complex...with many layers. Her assertion that "they said it felt good at the time" means that it wasn't traumatic is crap. I've worked with many people who were sexually abused and in most cases where the person said "it felt good" was because the predator convinced them that they were doing this because they were special...loved. And for some of these people it was the only time they did feel loved by the predator or anyone in their life for that matter. Being deceived and preyed upon by someone that one trusted and knew doesn't make it less of a trauma just because it felt good at the time.
Delia - "I find that at least a few books a year get attention simply for taking on the 'established view' of something, whether they have the evidence to take on this view or not." I find this a bit here, too, especially because her name already = controversy. But, what I do find delightful, is she stumbled upon an analytical goldmine, proof in print that we need to educate!
Jill - Yes, I've seen a couple vet studies, and it depends on who did the study as to the validity of it. Soldiers also do not make good research candidates because they have incentive to lie, it is really tricky. The bugger about PTSD, and getting statistical analysis on the bulk of the population who have PTSD, sexual abuse survivors, is there is not $ for it. Unless there is a drug study to fund, there simply isn't grant money floating around to fund these studies. It is deeply unfortunate. So, often, the data points get lumped in with war data statistics, which are often not representative, of course, depending on what you are trying to measure. You get my drift.
Plus, the DSM is going to recognize Simple and Complex PTSD in all likelihood in it's next iteration. Simple being one time incidence of trauma, like one sexual encounter, or a natural disaster, or car wreck, and complex, like ongoing childhood abuse, or prolonged war.
All I can say is, more discussion on a topic which is the Achilles heel of this nation, and somehow still taboo, is always a good thing.
Thanks for coming by!
Maybe the medical profession needs to find words to describe shades of abuse. A kid who gets oral sex from a camp counsellor and the physical feeling is pretty good, the psychological feeling is squicky, and he doesn't go back to camp again, is obviously in a totally different category from the kid who is repeatedly raped by his/her father.
Also, since the worst abusers usually start small, helping kids who've been fondled open up might allow us to identify and help the fondlers before they become rapists.
Ninety-five percent of sexual abuse victims never seek treatment because of what they falsely assume and fear about sexual abuse. Many of them do not even think they were sexually abused. This is a huge problem. You have people who call me and say, "My uncle attempted sexual penetration when I was a child, but I'm not sure if I qualify as a sexual abuse victim." I say, "How in God's name do you not think you're a sexual abuse victim?" It's because in most cases of sexual abuse, it was not traumatic when it happened.
It's a very fine line between what you're saying and saying that children aren't hurt by sexual abuse.
I will never say that. I could not be more clear. This is an atrocious, disgusting crime. People have a tendency to assume I'm saying it's not a big deal or it's the child's fault. Most people don't want to think too hard or thoroughly about these things."
I should have read the interview before. I do understand more now about what she is saying. There are more insiduous forms of abuse that are often not discussed so you have abuse victims wondering if they even have a right to feel damaged. I don't know how to view her take on repressed memories, exactly, but I do think she has a point with this.
I appreciate your viewpoint. But, for me, I am, again going to disagree.
Here's why. I do not, on a whole, believe this is about the 'medical establishment', in terms of how they approach or educate their clients or disseminate information. Nor, do I believe a vast majority of the information coming from the medical establishment is what is causing the perception many of the victims who don't realize they are abused. I believe the primary source of that is societies viewpoint, lack of education, lack of society talking about it, media, and this very thing happening here, people who are trying to ascribe false labels and nuances to categorize very personal experiences. The medical profession does already have words to describe different shades of abuse...it's the people who are trying to find the labels that don't.
This is an internal, political controversy of the medical establishment. It is a false controversy in terms of 'trauma'.
Saying the kid "obviously in a totally different category from the kid who is repeatedly raped by his/her father" is the exact thing this book is likely to generate - false perceptions. I understand you mean degree here, but it can add to the issue of people who have "just been molested" not getting the help they need.
Trauma is a medical word - it signifies what is happening in the brain/emotive centers/physiologically, etc. While I was going through much of my heavy trauma work, I had physical symptoms I was living with as a result of the trauma releasing from my body. During this time, I actually cut my foot and had to go to the ER. It was painful but interesting. My body reacted the same exact way as it did to the trauma releasing. That gave me a rare insight, one in which Alice Miller purports in her book "The Body Never Lies." I had the same physical symptoms that I had as the trauma was releasing. What that told me was that emotional trauma effects the body in the same ways that physical trauma does.
What is most likely, is many of the people who are going to get this therapy are adults dealing with their childhood traumas. If they are children, their parents will take them. Let's give them good information. Thanks for your input.
Delia - Yes, I am glad you read the interview. She definitely does a great service through her study of uncovering the population who does not understand they have been abused. I'm with you - she has a point, I just think she pointed it in the wrong direction - at the medical establishment.
Another 'label' isn't what solves this - it is education. Attacking the idea of 'trauma', which is a semantics discussion - saying if it isn't violent/it felt good/you trusted the person = not traumatic, undermines the medical nature of this issue. People need to know the truth about what happened to them, not be confused by people in the research field pointing fingers in the wrong direction.
I am thankful for her work as it has helped us begin a discussion. It does beg a question, where is the champion of this cause?
::deep sigh::
Forgot your last point, "Also, since the worst abusers usually start small, helping kids who've been fondled open up might allow us to identify and help the fondlers before they become rapists."
Abusers are not abusers until they have abused. That was my point about on my earlier comment about adults are the ones usually seeking therapy for childhood trauma. Many children do get therapy, and if they do, they are likely to not be the issue. It is the children who don't.
So, many kids also act out on each other. Another incidence which is not being discussed. Siblings. Friends. Etc. These can hold shameful feelings, too.
It is hard, because Clancy is not doing a 'bad' thing here, she is has exposed a lot of weaknesses in our society and why are we not discussing these things. However, whenever you try to find a scapegoat, you create controversy and confusion, versus healing and harmony. We need healing.
I think that Clancy disagrees with the mainstream perception of the problem and she looks down on "selling" child abuse. She's is saying that the solution is easier if we get the problem right. Her argument is sooooo anti-mainstream; it is futile to defend her.
That said, I agree with your argument, too. Great post, Sparking.
Rated.
Thanks for the comment!
Harmful = Wrongful. It's interesting and catchy - but - ultimately belittles the idea that the actual event was still harmful to the person it happened to, as in, it wasn't harmful. How can she say that for others?
I don't know why in the world anyone would want to "sell" child abuse. And, as a survivor, I assure you, my experience has been more pressure from society/people to "hurry up and get over that stuff so I don't need to think about it" than it has been one of compassion or support. Usually, this is because people do not want to look at their own traumas. I do agree with her in getting the problem right - let's do that. Let's expand the definition of what trauma is so those who don't realize they need help, get it.
Her last answer in this interview reeked of someone who does not want to do any work around potentially having her own trauma(s). She sees men as the only problem, David Cox helped me see that, and she started says, "I don't think that sex abuse victims in most cases need years of therapy to get over the betrayal." I just don't think she is qualified to say whether this is true or not.
If she wants to get the problem right - I am all for that. She went to far, and then started throwing people under the bus.
Thank you so much for coming by.
I am not sure I have much to say that hasn’t already been said above; lots of great comments and input. I had an overall impression that your review might have been a little skewed in one direction, despite your presentation of something favorable, but I haven’t read the book, just the interview.
Just a few quick thoughts:
You write, “What I take issue with is Clancy interviewed many people who were telling their stories for the first time, without the benefit of having any therapy.”
The assertion assumes “benefit” from therapy, which may or may not always be the case, and that that such benefit is necessary to talk about the event. Regardless of whom they speak to first about the event, it will be without such benefit.
You said, “In some ways, she is at risk of framing it for them, which is not the job of a researcher.”
I think it is not the job of a therapist, either, or anyone, for that matter; it should be the individual who had the experience who frames it.
You write, “…without the help of a trained psychologist, the full emotional picture of what occurred for each individual cannot be thoughtfully brought to light.”
I may be wrong in this, but that seems to suggest that you think individuals are incapable of dealing with their own emotions without someone else to frame it for them.
You said, “They are viewing an unprocessed experience, which happened as a child through child-like eyes, with an adult brain, and with an adult’s rationalization.”
I’m not sure that is necessarily or absolutely a bad thing. Each individual will weather the effects of the experience somewhat differently; it’s not a one-size-fits-all formula.
I have to consider the possibility that the trauma may not be solely the result of the actual event, and that some of the actual trauma may be created after the fact by the societal stigma attached, which by saying so, I in no way excuses the act. I just think there is likely more to the situation than the act alone and that in many cases the act itself may not be the worst.
As she states in the interview, “If you really want to help people, if you're really trying to prevent and treat a social problem, you have to describe the problem truthfully.”
Unfortunately, often that is the most difficult aspect; “describing the problem truthfully”.
RATED highly.
I may no qualms in saying my review isn't partial - I am writing it from a survivor's perspective. It's in the title.
My assumption isn't that therapy is needed to talk about the event, not at all, usually people do with someone before they choose to get therapy (or not), it's about her taking a control group of 200 who most if not all had not had any processed information, raw "truth" without any emotional processing, and making sweeping conclusions about it.
There were red flags throughout the book. I talked with my current therapist about this, and she saw this, too. Mypsyche, a therapist, saw it in how they all described it as "confusing". It is a large indicator.
Therapists do sometimes help "frame" the event for a client who has survived trauma, in the sense of trying to understand the truth the client presents and help guide them to put it in some emotional context. Development was arrested at the time the event occurred - it does not mean the person quit being functional.
Not everyone will need or want therapy. However, most, men and women I have known in this situation, have sought out therapy. That is about 200 people. My insinuation isn't that adults can't handle their emotions, please don't read more into my words that are there, this is specifically about sexual abuse and most don't understand they were even abused. Clancy even makes this same argument in the book - she would be negligent not to.
It is about getting good, accurate information, so you can make decisions from there. This book does not help move that agenda forward. It points fingers.
"I just think there is likely more to the situation than the act alone and that in many cases the act itself may not be the worst."
I honestly think this analysis is not important - as each individual will be different. The event created the fallout, and until it is dealt with in some fashion, it is likely to cause issues for the person.
Thank you for your comments.
I think you make a great point about abetting an abuser - this is often the role women do play in this cycle, one that isn't discussed. It can be equally painful and traumatizing to the child, something I hear adults talk about a lot, how their mothers abandoned them to the abuser. Often, a child will only tell once, it they are not heard and cared for properly, this becomes their new paradigm to see the world through - this must be a part of life. Very sad indeed.
Thank you very much for your comment.
I think most people assume that broad sweeping claims have exceptions and so I suspect the appeal to some of books like this is that they appear to answer that, offering up the "missing piece." So some number of readers are pre-primed to expect there will be outcomes like this but are not looking carefully at whether this is in fact the proper data they have sought. Since as you say it's not carefully controlled (and your rationale on that sounds right), even if the claim offered is sometimes true (and that sounds suspect, too, as you say), the percentages are probably way off. But the fact that all the language you quote (I haven't read the original text) suggests subjective judgments, it all sounds ultimately flakey.
I'm somewhat reminded of the studies on whether stress and the "Type A" personality causes high blood pressure, etc. It might in fact do this but the early studies which concluded this were not done with good controls or metrics, and so I've seen it said that the studies were garbage notwithstanding the outcome. (I don't know if there has been subsequent research one way or another, but that isn't my point. My point is that when people want a result to be true or are guided by intuition, the result may not be good science.)
Sexual abuse within family systems are considered the most traumatic, especially those by primary care givers. It sets the child up with such a disillusioned view of themselves as they mature, that they never were really given a chance from the get go. Then, society sees a physical adult and thinks, "oh, he/she is so promiscuous" or "he needs to get over it" or "why is she so angry?" The compassion often leaves when people are looking at the face of adult who never had the opportunity, to use the cliche which makes me cringe, "heal the child within." It is an unfortunate fallout of this epidemic.
Wow! Thank you for that. I don't think I said it nearly as clearly as you did.
I was abused physically by my father but not sexually. It was constant and terrible. Meets all the criteria of trauma discussed and finetuned by you, the author and your commenters.
I get the impression the author is a real thinker and genuine in how she tries to get past the horror and reactions to make more meaningful what we mean by trauma.
I waited this long to comment because I don't want a lot of discussion about this: at 14 I was raped in jail. My only option at the time was to pretend to go along or it would have been violent. I did not "forget" it or deny it. a year after, my older brother asked me if anything like that happened to me. I said it did. He immediately accused me of lying, so I said right, I was" lying", to him. It took me 30 years to say the truth out loud, to my wife.
I still can't bring myself to write about it effectively.
There are very different kinds of trauma. In ancient Greece boys welcomed older men into sexual relationships, because of the honor and advantages it gave them. Or did they? There were protocols and rules. It is impossible to draw firm conclusions.
And I understand that very subtle things happen sometimes, and that trauma might just be too strong a word for what transpires, or almost happens. And that contrary to what we think we know, the young can be precocious and make advances.
But what happened to me was terrible. I was forced to make like it was "OK". 6 boys in a room that slept 4. Two of us were the designated victims. And not one moment of "violence", but I still want to kill one of them, for making me "like it". I mean really, really kill him.
Jesus. i still don't know how to talk about this. I veer from brain to gut in this comment. I don't know what I want to say here.
This is why I say it is clear she has little relevant fieldwork experience.
Thank you for this astute observation.
Greg - Your comment is hard to hear but welcomed. My heart goes out to you.
Coming to terms with such a horrendous act is very personal and individual. I appreciate your courage in sharing it here. I can imagine it would have been painful for the first time attempting to share about it to have it been met with disbelief to be even more confusing. I had the same experience by a peer.
For me, it wasn't until I had help putting the full experience into perspective within my life with the help of a therapist that I saw the fruits of full healing. I tried on my own for a long time. While I had cognitive understanding, and recognition of my emotions, there was a lot of disconnect around how it all fit together for me and even more so as to how to integrate it into my being and move on. I didn't even realize the impact it was having on my life before therapy, how could I? EMDR is a wonderful therapy modality for this, which I found later in life, that was amazing. I can only share what worked for me.
I, too, think Clancy is trying to make genuine sense of the data she was given. However, knowing what I know about trauma and how it manifests, her conclusions were false. She simply jumbles the adjective of an event, "traumatic", and the medical definition of trauma, a set of symptoms which indicate a reaction in the brain to an event causing change. As to how much "trauma" one has, is about degree rather than the actual definition, which is where she focused.
I will tell you from my experience - to say out loud that you wanted to kill your abuser, is one indicator that you are very aware of your feelings. This is a shared feeling by many victims/survivors, including me, it's just a hard thing to say out loud because we are trained to think this isn't "OK" to think or say. I've yet to meet someone who didn't eventually need to say this.
I think the only thing I would caution you about is when you say, "that contrary to what we think we know, the young can be precocious and make advances." Even if this is true, it is ALWAYS the adult's responsibility to have good boundaries and let a child know what is appropriate and what is not.
I realized the best thing I could do is work on my piece of this great big puzzle. As a result, I have had the pleasure of speaking with a lot of survivors and people who have used different modalities to heal. They are people who have had different degrees of trauma, come from different walks of life, range from sexual to emotional to physical trauma (including war), and I have seen one very important thing: the solution is more education and open discussion. When we focus on that, it seems to ensure more people get the help they need. Thank you for being a part of that today.
I was sexually molested several times between the ages of 5 and 8. I had never really thought of those incidents as abuse. I've discussed those experiences (at length) with my therapist and one of the biggest hurdles I had to overcome was simply acknowledging that what happened to me was abuse. I kept making excuses for avoiding that lable - there was no violence, I could've said no, there was no penetration - and all because I didn't think I was "traumatised enough". I couldn't let go of the notion that because I wasn't visibly traumatised (then and now), it must mean that what happened to me wasn't such a big deal.
I'm now able to see how those childhood experiences had a profound impact on the adult me. That I hadn't escaped unscathed (as I thought I did).
The burden of having to "prove" myself was taken away and I could then deal with the real issues - that I was abused and that it did affect me.
I'm part of AA. My abuse happened late (17 yrs old) but when I look back at it now I was really a child. I was very naive and I never told anyone for many years. I now know that my alcohol use started immediately after the event. I'm told that 75% of women in AA are survivors of abuse. When I look around the rooms of AA I wonder what the percentage of perpetrators are in the room. But, of course this subject is considered taboo in the rooms of AA and I want to know why. I also wish I knew how many men put this on their 4th step list. I have a hunch it's not many.
Thanks for a great review!!! Better late than never. (r)
There is an academic point to be made here, one that has been noted in previous (and credible) research on this topic. The point is that if an airplane crashes, sometimes not everyone dies. Which is not to say that an airplane crash is an ok thing or that the experience is no big deal.
In my view, the book is not worth reading simply because of the title. The title and the text could have emphasized that emotional trauma involves a complex set of factors. It could have emphasized that despite the common patterns, the experience can be unique and can reflect individual differences. Instead, the title is cheap, sensational, misleading and manipulative ... so you would expect nothing more from the text.
Flora McCall - As a member of AA, I have some of the same questions you do. I can assure you, abuse is not something a large sampling of the membership wants to discuss, if you haven't already experienced that. Thank you for this wise input.
Nikki - It's only my recommendation - I'm certainly not offended. If something resonates, by all means check it out. I judged it based on a lot of knowledge of trauma (study and reading of books), personal experience, working with others with trauma, and her conclusions are erroneous to me based upon what I know and have experienced (which is also what I know). She did uncover a great piece of information - societal perception of what trauma is - and I believe we can work to overcome that, we just disagree on how. I don't expect everyone to agree with me either. Thanks for your input.
pgm - I almost can't fault Clancy for the title. Almost. She still put her name on it. I have to hope it was for publicity spin. That said, I agree with your comment. Great points!
She also claims that recovered memory doesn't exist. Yet, many studies show that not only does it exist, but that it is often accurate. There are legal cases that back this up, including the recent Paul Shanley case decided in Massachusetts.
http://childabusewiki.org/index.php?title=Recovered_Memories
This person should be strung up, just another Psychologist trying to stand out and make a name for herself, she is in fact stating that its ok to abuse children? well the title of book really gets to me, not only is it false but I am asking people not to buy it, don't give her the attention she wants.
This book give peadophiles the green light too abuse children, hey don't worry they enjoy it and they wont be traumised by it in later life, what a sick minded individual Susan is.
OK Susan time to have you admitted into a psychatric ward!!!
Joe Peters
Author
Joe - I appreciate your candor and understand your feelings. Obviously Susan doesn't understand how she may be contributing to the "green light" of abuse, but any paradigm which solely focuses on the belief system of the abused and not the event itself while undermining the medical community is completely inept.
She simply does not have the field expertise to come to the conclusions she does.
As other state here, I don't think she even realizes saying trauma doesn't exist gives that green light, as she doesn't think the victims need to do any "work", it is all on the justice systems to round these "men" up and make them go away. This is a classic indicator of someone who has trauma in their own background, most likely repressed memories since she worked so hard to refute that premise, and does not want to face it.
I appreciate your wisdom here and while I'm not one to string people up, I am certainly one for calling things out. Thank you.
In that Salon interview Clancy says there should be "clear legal terms" to differentiate between "touching and no force" and "penetrative...that involves force."
Massachusetts residents like Clancy can check out Massachusetts General Laws (MGL) for these differentiations.
Differentiating those legal terms seems irrelevant to me in some ways as the result of how trauma effects someone can not be determined at the time a case goes to trial. That is the weirdness of our legal system. I think considerations like whether it was a child, as this shows a certain level of recidivism which is likely to not be overcome at this time, as well as measuring the person's history with tougher guidelines than we have. How much "force" is such a misnomer as to what "degree" of trauma was caused. There are much different factors and it would seem our legal system should line up with this -- not based on the idea of penetration.
It is insane, under prosecuted, and wholly bankrupt in the way sexual abuse is handled in this country.
I read Clancy's interview when it was published in Salon and it was a trigger for me. I was sexually abused by my stepfather (no penetration) from 4 to 11, when I told my mother. She called the police; I was interrogated, he was arrested & then released because he passed the polygraph.
I'm not going to waste too much mental energy trying to imagine what it's like in his head, but he obviously didn't think he was doing anything wrong. As I got older and started to figure out that what was happening was wrong, I tried to stop it and he reacted as if I was his girlfriend, trying to break up with him.
To this day, my mother doesn't really believe me & blames me for the fuck-up that is her life.
This:
Sexual abuse within family systems are considered the most traumatic, especially those by primary care givers. It sets the child up with such a disillusioned view of themselves as they mature, that they never were really given a chance from the get go. Then, society sees a physical adult and thinks, "oh, he/she is so promiscuous" or "he needs to get over it" or "why is she so angry?"
Everyone thinks I'm such a bright, cheery person who always has a smile and a laugh. But that one fucking interview set me off into a panic spiral and I had to take FMLA while waiting for the fucking Zoloft to kick in.
If you had asked me two months ago if I was "traumatized" by the sexual abuse in my childhood, I would have laughed in your face.
I really appreciate your comment. I think there are many who can relate to you (and I). Over time, as I've thought about it, when someone is so vehement about judging the value of something, say therapy, there is usually some sort of mirror value that probably needs to be looked at. In other words, what is the author herself resisting?
EMDR therapy is what has saved my life. I have heard the same thing about somatic therapy for others. It is more of a mind/body/spirit therapy, and not all 'talk'. It really lets you process things from a different perspective. This fall, I plan to write some pieces on my experience with EMDR.
I wish you well on your path.
So you take issue to her claim that the trauma is caused by therapy by saying the lack of therapy is the reason for the lack of trauma?
Good job.
You can read it that way if you want. That sentence out of context of the whole, sure does sum up your point nicely.
No, she used an entire set of people who were telling there story for the first time, without any integration into the whole being or time for perspective to be found by the victim. That is a slanted set of criteria. Her argument is over whether the adjective "traumatic" not being used disqualifies someone from having experienced "trauma" a medical term. They are not mutually exclusive, in my opinion, as someone who has done a lot of work around this.
Of course, you don't have to agree, but your quipping is lost on me, especially around such a serious subject.
"These victims did not sound as if they had processed what had happened to them or had any sense of the cause and effect relationship these events had on their lives. Simply put, they sounded very child-like in the telling of their stories, which is very natural when a traumatic memory/event has not been integrated into your overall life's framework as well as your being, body/mind/spirit. "
Is so paternalistic it makes me vomit a lil in my mouth.
Let me say it real slow for all the second wave feminists in the room: just because someone doesn't have the same narrative about their experience of something you find offensive/abusive/or otherwise objectionable doesn't mean you get to dictate that they just "don't get it" & haven't worked through their issues.
This goes equally for indigenous tribal women, sex workers, working class women of color, people who enjoy BDSM & the many other groups who have critiqued second wave feminism as dictatorial & paternalistic.
Because I know that I will be dismissed as a misogynistic crackpot unless I give my bona fides I'm a "survivor" & have "worked on my issues" (sucked in early by the insanity of the Courage to Heal folks) & have even worked extensively with survivors in a professional capacity.
In fact one of the primary reasons I found The Trauma Myth is because I was looking for factual information (not reactionary tripe) that spoke to MY experience; that is the experience of someone who was sexually abused but not traumatized. You see, after years of trying to fit my experience into the box created by the "if you feel you were abused, even if there is no evidence, you must have been" crowd I got tired of the gross cognitive dissonance this caused for me which resulted in lots of stress, anxiety & depression.
My experience, though confusing, complicated & deleterious in some respects didn't make me feel like I was going to die & bears little resemblance to experiences of folks I've met who really were traumatized & really do have PTSD.
Which, if you've read the book is all that this woman is trying to say: not everyone who has sexual experiences with adults is traumatized.
I can testify that this is true because it's my truth & dismissing me because my narrative is different from yours is patronizing & offensive.
I am all for liberation of women, in whatever form they find. I don't think Clancy alights that process, I believe she confuses it through her own narrow breadth of knowledge.
Paternalistic? Doubtful. Educated? Yes. Rude? Rarely. This is my experience and I stand by it, and I certainly don't think your cynical comment does anything to perpetuate healing - it just wipes your feet on my experience. Well done.