Drama Receipts

TFW you’d like to put in some actual useful info into the MAP tags, but they’re so infested with antis that you wonder if it will ever reach the community. Oh well, hope never dies.

Remember when the last we knew about the neuroanatomy of a pedophile’s brain was that there was a lack of gray matter in some areas and they were associated with lower IQ? Yeah well, on May 2017 another study came that decided to test this properly, and actually divided the group of pedophiles between those who had already offended, and those who never had. 

Results were interesting: 

To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to differentiate brain structural anomalies in pedophiles with and without a history of CSO. Consistent with the conceptualization of the DSM-5, which specifies CSO as most the prominent criterion that differentiates pedophilia from pedophilic disorder, there were nosignificant differences between the GM volumes of the non-offending pedophiles and the teleiophilic controls. In contrast, the pedophiles who had engaged in CSO showed a significantly reduced relative GM volume in the right TP compared with pedophiles who did not.

CSO (child sexual offense); GM (gray matter); TP (temporal pole)

Before this study, what we knew talked generally of impaired behavior inhibition that is usually associated with prefrontal cortex, but in this study we actually find another marker that is not associated with the prefrontal cortex, differentiating pedophilic disorder from antisocial personality disorder and others that share lack of empathy and behavior inhibition. 

Modifications in TP has already proof that it leads to sexual dishinibition and social problems:

the development of Klüver–Bucy syndrome in men and in nonhuman primates following lesions in the TP is characterized by impairments in deciphering social cues and sexual disinhibition. In functional MRI research, this finding is also supported by evidence showing that TP deactivation is a precondition for sexual response to visual sexual stimuli and activation in theory of mind and empathy.

TP (temporal pole)

In our study, the GM volume in the dorsomedial PFC/ACC was negatively correlated with a quantitative marker for pedophilia that is associated with the risk to re-offend (SSPI-2). This finding is related to antisociality and contributes to the existing literature on the deficient inhibitory control in pedophilic CSOs.

GM (gray matter); PFC (prefrontal cortex); ACC (anterior cingulate cortex)

So what they’re saying is that TP might be a significant marker, and that this, associated with also lesser volume of gray matter in the prefrontal cortex ( (which is usually associated with antisociality and psycopathy) or anterior cingulate cortex, seems to indicate that the pedophile has impaired control and elevated sexual inhibition, leading them to re-offend.

The present study substantiates the idea that CSO in pedophilia rather than pedophilia alone is associated with changes in GM integrity, particularly in the right temporal pole.

CSO (child sexual offense); GM (gray matter)

P.S. The journal this study was published in has a decent impact factor and although it suffers from a small set of subjects - although I’ve read others with a way smaller group - (less than 120 for pedophiles, and roughly the same for the control group), it’s finally one that is highlighting the difference between offending and non-offending pedophiles, on top of not taking their subject pool just from prison. 

“abusers intend to hurt the people they abuse”

this is FALSE. it’s still abuse even if they didn’t mean to.

“abuse is only physical or sexual”

this is FALSE. emotional abuse is just as valid/scarring as physical and sexual abuse.

“abuse has to happen multiple times to be abuse”

it really depends on the situation. in general, the only things that are undoubtedly abusive even if done once are:

sexually touching a child

hitting anyone in order to control them (i.e. a parent wants to “teach” the child something by hitting them)

besides those exceptions, this statement is TRUE.

“abuse survivors go on to abuse their children/SO’s”

this is FALSE. if we educate survivors about their experiences and a) help them process these experiences and b) teach them not to repeat these behaviors, then we can break the cycle of abuse inter-generationally.

“x group can’t abuse y group”

i.e. siblings can’t abuse their siblings, teachers can’t abuse their students, children can’t abuse other children, LGBTQIA+ relationships can’t be abusive, etc.

this is FALSE. abuse is unfortunately prevalent among all groups across the world.

“they probably deserved it”

this is FALSE. no abuse survivor ever deserves to be abused. EVER. yes, that means you too.

“there is a set range of behaviors that is abusive, and everything else is not abusive”

this is FALSE. if you believe you were abused, then you were abused. abuse is all about perception. if you didn’t like how you were being treated, and the abuser didn’t stop, it was abuse.

“you can tell someone is an abuser/abuse survivor by looking at them”

this is FALSE. anyone, and i mean ANYONE, can be an abuser/ abuse survivor. abusers are often the ones society likes the most. statistically speaking, you probably know other survivors, and unfortunately, other abusers (besides your own)

like do y’all even think about the children you’re exposing? do you know how humiliating it will be for more people to see their abuse? i don’t care if it says don’t look!

and are you even thinking about how you’re giving pedophiles even MORE access routes? are you even thinking about how that’s going to make the child porn even more difficult to remove? you’re making it HARDER for everyone who’s trying to stop it!

also spreading child porn is ILLEGAL holy fucking shit! they don’t care if it’s for a “good cause” you’re literally still spreading irl child porn.

no, your friend probably has not noticed they cut you off four times in this conversation. 

no, your brother didn’t realize his music was that loud while you were studying. 

no, your bff or S.O. doesn’t remember that you’re on a tight deadline right now.

no, no one else is paying attention to the four power dynamics at play in your friend group right now.  

a habit of abused kids, especially kids with unstable parents, is the tendency to notice every little detail. We magnify small nuances into major things, largely because small nuances quickly became breaking points for parents. Managing moods, reading the room, perceiving danger in the order of words, the shift of body weight….it’s all a natural outgrowth of trying to manage unstable parents from a young age. 

Here’s the thing: most people don’t do that. I’m not saying everyone else is oblivious, I’m saying the over analysis of minor nuances is a habit of abuse. 

I have a rule: I do not respond to subtext. This includes guilt tripping, silent treatments, passive aggressive behavior, etc. I see it. I notice it. I even sometimes have to analyze it and take a deep breath and CHOOSE not to respond. Because whether it’s really there or just me over-reading things that actually don’t mean anything, the habit of lending credence to the part of me that sees danger in the wrong shift of body weight…that’s toxic for me. And dangerous to my relationships. 

[Image Description: Two color blocks in a vertical row, one pink and one black, with text that reads “you are responsible for your own content consumption / you are responsible for your own safety and wellbeing online”]

The entirety of the internet is not a safe space. It has never been a safe space and it will never be a safe space because you will never be able to get the entirety of the internet and everyone on it to bend and change to meet your needs and desires in order to strip it clean of everything that you find distasteful or distressing. That is an impossible battle that, short of the creation of some 1984-esque society and the destruction of all reason and critical thinking and free will in the world, you will never win.

A battle you can win, however, is the one to take responsibility for your own online experience.

Install a blacklist extension that will allow you to block tags as needed. Block people who post things you don’t like. Unfollow people who put things on your dash that make your online experience unpleasant. Request and encourage that people properly tag their posts and mark their blogs as 18+ as that applies.

Do not purposefully ‘hate follow’ blogs who post things you know will upset you. Do not purposefully seek out content you know will trigger you. Do not purposefully engage with people you know you will get nowhere with except mentally frayed and exhausted.

There will always, always, always be things online that you will not like, things that disgust you and even trigger you. If these things are against the law or against a particular site’s terms of service then, by all means, take actions to report those things but the fact is that the vast majority of what you don’t like online will not be against a site’s rules much less against a country’s laws and while we can ask people to properly tag their posts and mark their blogs, attempting to wipe the content they’re posting entirely from existence will be an incredibly futile undertaking to attempt. But what isn’t futile is taking steps to avoid that content and to avoid being in situations online that are detrimental to your online experience and your mental health.

and the way people insist on censoring stuff just reminds me of how my country censors anything it doesn’t see as appropriate (sex, LGBT stuff, blasphemy, etc.) and I don’t see why I should be supportive of antis or grateful to them when I hate censorship. As long as people tag stuff properly, they can write and draw whatever they want (and everyone is free to feel about it as they please, but not to harass or censor them).

what a great ask. thank you, anon.

A good point being made here is that if we censor a subject it becomes impossible for anyone to be educated about it. and these days, that’s an especially big problem.

universally censoring a topic is nigh impossible because the internet. we have a repository of massive swathes of human knowledge at our fingertips. if you want a person to never encounter a topic you’d have to cut off their internet access entirely or live in a country where the government censors internet access to that topic - and there would still be ways to access it, guaranteed.

rather, censorship leaves people vulnerable to misinformation and harm. because here’s the thing: 

if something is censored because we consider it too dangerous to acknowledge, we hand control of all available information on the topic over to the very people the censorship is intended to silence.

think about it for a moment: if the subject of white supremacy is censored because Nazi ideas are too dangerous to discuss, who’s going to respect that topic ban? 

decent human beings

white supremacists

white supremacists will go right on talking about white supremacy. maybe more quietly or subtly than before, and maybe the most cowardly ones will be all but silenced, but they won’t just entirely stop. (and bonus: now they don’t have anyone around to counterpoint them because they’re all busy respecting the ban.)

Or another example: if we forbid people from mentioning domestic abuse, it won’t make domestic abusers stop abusing; it just cuts their victims off from any potential knowledge they are being abused or finding out they’re not all alone in the world.

and when a topic is censored, an oppositional effect can kick in. certain types of people will want to learn about the topic because it’s censored - and in that event, they will encounter the topic only the way that its hidden advocates see it, truthful or not. having no defenses against the information presented to them, they will be deeply vulnerable to it.

where false ideologies and potentially injurious topics cannot be completely censored, the only effective defense is being educated about it ahead of time.

Being taught accurate, honest information inoculates people against lies pushed by people with an agenda of any kind. 

take the American taboo against the topic of sex. even educating adolescents about sex is often barely tolerated as a reason to discuss it with any nuance or detail. misinformation abounds. teens are told all sorts of ridiculous lies in an attempt to scare them out of having sex* and never taught about their bodies through the lens of sexual things.

has this reduced teen pregnancy, slowed the spread of STDs, or prevented children and adolescents from being exploited by abusers or fetishists? not by a long shot. instead, the lack of education and strong taboo against openness about sex leads to young people being unable to make informed decisions about sexual contact, not knowing when they’re being exploited, and afraid of turning to authority figures when they need support or help.  if sex were less taboo as a topic - if young people were taught more, taught honestly and truthfully, and allowed to talk about sex with trustworthy people who could support and help them** - a lot of accidental (and deliberate!) harm could be prevented or stopped much sooner.

Good education about frightening subjects sucks the fear out of those subjects. when something is known and understood it’s much harder to fear it and much easier to fight back against it. Accurate information about risky topics also sucks the seductive mystery out of those topics. The truth tends to ruin romantic fantasies about things experts want others to avoid for good reason.

in short: not talking about a subject doesn’t actually make the subject go away.  it just makes it harder to protect against.

‘but this doesn’t address fiction about these topics!’ fiction that mentions or explores a taboo or controversial subject isn’t education in the strictest sense, but in general I think every new take adds to an individual’s information matrix. examining a dangerous subject through a variety of lenses, written by a variety of people, both fictional and nonfictional takes will offer various viewpoints and food for thought. 

‘but what if fiction glorifies the bad thing? if fiction is educational then fiction that treats a bad thing as good is dangerous and harmful!’ first of all, true fiction (as opposed to allegories/parables/propaganda/etc, which is ‘fiction with an educational agenda’) is just too unknowable an experience to say for sure if any instance of a bad thing is absolutely-for-sure deliberate glorification of something harmful. everyone takes something a little different away from a fictional work. 

secondly, this is both the reason why fiction should not be the lone form of education on any subject and exactly why censoring a topic from being talked about is a terrible idea! if a person’s only encounter with a concept is a misinformed one - fictional or not - it’s not a surprise their understanding of the subject will be poor and misinformed (though I think it’s highly unlikely that a person with internet access will only encounter even a taboo subject only once.)  And if the subject is taboo or censored, their opportunities to safely explore the topic will be limited. On the other hand, if risky subjects are openly discussed and taught about, even a terrible, glorifying fictional work wouldn’t be able to trick a reader into thinking the bad subject was actually good. they would be protected against harm by their previous knowledge of it.

this post became far longer than I intended, but the point is: censorship hurts people. Education helps people. And I’ve never seen nor heard a subject that was so dangerous it couldn’t even be talked about. 

*I think a lot about the lies told to young people about lots of things in the world, and how damaging those lies are to all subsequent teaching on the topic. If a person with a uterus is told they will get pregnant from oral sex, only to find out from a uterus-having friend that they had oral sex and they didn’t get pregnant, that makes all the rest of the information that much more doubtful. The same kinds of scare tactics are used when talking about drug use. Why would minors trust adults about drugs or abstinence when their exaggerations make the (still risky!) reality of doing drugs or having sex seem so comparatively tame?