Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

oh my god , fuck you LJ

So ... with just a very tiny amount of looking into it, I have to say that the majority of people I've seen who've posted that sexual abuse meme (proclaim to the land of LJ that you've been abused and wear it as sort of badge of honor) are currently poly, heavily into BDSM, M/s relationships, or just enjoy showing their tits to the world repeatedly becuase it's "their choice, their body".

Some could see that as taking the power back, as exercising choices over who sees, who does, who is allowed on their own terms. And there is of course the slim chance that that's the case... but it's really doubtful.

Why don't most people see that behavior as a side effect? It's not that difficult to see that being sexualized at an early age (in the case of childhood sexual abuse) really easily lends itself to high levels of promiscuity and the NEED for sexual attention later in life. Girls who were abused as pre-teens typically end up equating (subconsciously usually) sex with love. If they don't want to fuck you, they can't possibly care about you. Affection is EQUAL to sex. This is especially true in the case of abuse from family members, older male family members.

This is just personal experience. I'm not a clinician, no training, haven't had some course work or a doctor to tell me it's so. I don't have any sort of statistics to back it up. I don't think I need statistics.

Anyway, this is one of the things that bothers me the most about forums like Live Journal. They aren't avenues for self discovery, they're the means to futher delusion and just another way to hide.

(I'm also really ticked by the number of "when I was a teenager, a peer pinched my ass, therefore I was sexually abused" instances I've seen. How fucking demeaning to anyone who's actually been through something terrible. Everyone has their different levels of tolerance, different levels of strength. I accept and understand that. But some people go out of their way to make up a terrible life that didn't exist, and how incredibly thoughtless is that?)


(Deleted comment)
Aug. 10th, 2004 12:12 pm (UTC)
Re: Saw this through an LJ friend's LJ and...
Promiscuity and sexual abuse go hand in hand. They just do. You can't explain that away with a poorly made slipperly slope argument about homosexuality. These are apples and bologna sandwiches you are comparing. Yes, if I were an intellectual lightweight who needed to blow things up to their "logical" conclusion in order to make a strained argument about something then yeah, I could see me going for the "abuse causes homos" angle.

There's a huge gulf of possibility between sex through a sheet for purposes of procreation only and "I like to be beaten in public and have "slut" carved into my inner thighs while my master pisses in my mouth". It's not an either or situation and I didnt say that people who like a little spanking or kink now and again are all victims of abuse.
I didn't even get *close* to saying that so I think you're pretty off base here and didn't really get my point.

I DID say that the BDSM, M/s, exhbitionist attention whores on LJ who are posting it stand a high chance of being into their given kinks because of whatever abuse they've been through, in the case of sexual abuse at an early age.
Rape victims above a certain age don't tend to follow those same patterns, but systematic sexual abuse is pretty easy to track. For example, I personally have never met a stripper who wasn't abused as a pre-teen. I'm sure they exist... I personally have just never met one (and I used to work at a "go go bar")

The idea that they just happen to talk about sex more and are therefore more likely to post that meme is ...well it's silly really. The only way I can see someone not at least giving the connection a fair shot at validity is if they had some specific need to *not* believe that.
I'm not saying I'm right. I'm not saying you're wrong. But I'm also not buying your arguments here.

Don't feed me that whole Puritanical intolerant culture crap. I've known enough people into all manner of "deviant" sex to know that what you like having done to your penis to get off has little to do with your actual day to day character and even less to do with how society as a whole views you (unless you're into children). Getting gagged and spanked doesn't make you all that special and it certain doesn't mean you're one of the oppressed. Spare me.

(Deleted comment)
Aug. 10th, 2004 02:38 pm (UTC)
Re: Two quick points that did not fit
Again, I think you are completely missing the point of what I've said or we are simply talking at cross purposes.

the point about stripper has everything to do with topic and my original point. Sexual abuse has a direct correlation to promiscuity later in life.

You've also upped the vocabulary, which in internet discussions means you realize you're speaking from a weak stance.

I dont think you have much of a point at all beyond you just not agreeing with me that there is more than a coincidental connection between BDSM, M/s relationships, and exhibitionism and sexual abuse at an early age. If you just don't agree, then that's cool. But if you actually want to discuss the point you're going to have to be a little more coherent.
(Deleted comment)
Aug. 10th, 2004 04:13 pm (UTC)
Re: Two quick points that did not fit
you sure do talk funny
Aug. 10th, 2004 04:35 pm (UTC)
Hehe... sure okay.

I could address your points. I could try really hard to make a clear statement about what I was saying. At no point in time was I saying "ALL PEOPLE INTO BDSM WERE ABUSED AND DISPLAY ABBHERANT PSYCHOLOGICAL DISORDERS" and you seem to have taken it that. I know plenty of people who've had no connection at all to terrible abusive situations who STILL enjoy being peed on by their mate. Lucky for me I guess that I didn't also expound on my ideas about polyamory.

It's obvious that this is personal for you in a completely different direction than the way that it is personal to me. Until you jumped in I think everyone was clear on this being an opinion. It's a topic I've visited repeatedly for various reasons.

My point about upping the vocabulary has nothing to do with your relative level of intelligence, but everything to do with being defensive. People do it when they begin to get upset by something. I tend to do it myself in arguments when I get to a point of annoyance. Just something you realize about people in onilne correspondence if you've been in enough discussions. It doesn't mean you're trying to impress, it's just a tell that this is personally upsetting/aggravating for you.

I don't think my rhetorical question in a post that I was obviously writing about from an angle of annoyance really warranted all of this babble. I use the word babble becuase it's what it is. I can understand wanting to defend your own personal position on the matter, but I hardly attacked you personally, so the defense isn't really against me... just against what you assumed I meant I suppose.

I don't think psychology is impirical truth (and I never said or implied that I did). Given what has happened to the basic diagnosis manual of most industrialized nations in the past 40 years it's hard to really say that matters of the mind are really hammered out and nailed down, even if you *do* think that something like psychology can be quantified in such a basic way. But I do think that a lot of people in the world (and I'm a person too) fool themselves about their own motives.

To boil it down to one small point (that I'm pretty sure I made in the last response): we seem to have a difference of opinion.

(Deleted comment)
Aug. 10th, 2004 06:51 pm (UTC)
My wondering was what I felt was an obviously rhetorical question.
You did not see it as rhetorical.
I've tried several times now just say hey, difference of opinion. That's fine. Different approach and we're obviously speaking at cross purposes.

Instead of just shrugging and saying okay, agree to disagree, we don't see eye to eye here, we just aren't arguing about the same things (becuase to be honest, I'm not sure I really *care* about your position), you decided to be a twat about it.
Which is well... typical really.

I'll remember in the future that passersby will sometimes get self righteously indignant and pointlessly pedantic with me. If I had at any point actually used "science and logic to label" people then I could agree that your arguments might be valid. But I didn't. And they aren't. And you're a twat.

(Deleted comment)
Aug. 11th, 2004 04:46 am (UTC)
hehe twat.
Aug. 11th, 2004 04:59 am (UTC)
OH... and I stand on "promiscuity and abuse go hand in hand" that I never said anything differerent about. The whole... bdsm, M/s, etc. thing... that's where we differ. THAT is where I just shrugged and said difference of opinion.

I understand what you're trying to say about science and logic not being used as false reasons against labelling people. I understand your point. Your point is just *so far* from anything I was talking about that I find it silly.

It's like saying something about the plantlife on jupiter and having someone tell you that the solar system may not actually have 9 planets. Your scope or argument wasn't something I am interested in arguing (or well, argument at all really).

If you didn't have the time for all this, you'd have stopped replying already instead of coming back and telling me you didn't have time for it. My comments about you upping the vocacularly or holding a position of weakness in an argument have more to do with actual one on one arguing than anything on the internet and while I've been involved in quite a few online discussions and debates I'm hardly playing the L33T role here (and haven't tried) so spare me the assumption. Thought you didn't like those?

I made this point because it's a journal. It's not a serious discussion forum. I vent, I ask questions, sometimes I even post something completely silly. If I were posting this to some sort of forum asking for actual REAL answers to questions I wouldn't have stated it that way, I would have taken the time to make my point as clear as possible to avoid offending or misleading anyone, and I woulnd't have used a rhetorical question that firmly placed me in the "correct" position (as most people do in rhetoricals). I know that the people who typically read this have known me for long enough to realize when I'm just venting.

I didn't go *looking* for personal attacks. I still think you upped the vocabularly. I still think you're speaking from a point of personal importance and therefore have no subjectivity on the topic. I still think you're a twat.

</i>"please do not waste their time like you've wasted mine"</i>

Hehe... by doing what? Maybe by going into their online journal and starting a "discussion" about some post they made? Would that be a time waster?

... twat.


A Non-Newtonian Fluid

Latest Month

March 2010

Page Summary

Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Tiffany Chow