#yeah obviously male abusers are more prevalent | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

kitkatopinions · 3 years

Note

Do you think that overall the male character s in RWBY are more compelling than the female characters? Something I’ve noticed about the RWDE bloggers I keep up with is that their favorites all seem to be Ironwood, Oz, Oscar, Sun, and Mercury. Don’t get me me wrong, I’m definitely NOT accusing the RWDE community of hating on female characters and being sexist. It’s totally normal for people to prefer male characters when the creators have made a bunch of interesting, multi-dimensional male characters and neglected female characters (or in RWBY’s case, letting the formerly multi-dimensional and interesting female characters fall into unlikability). Just curious if you think this is the reason for the male fave prevalence with RWDEs or if it’s just coincidence

I think that the writing is definitely a big part of it. Back in the first three seasons of RWBY, the main four characters were put in a lot more focus in the narrative, and the writing was more even. Most of the RWDE posters I've seen, talk about having loved many characters back then, including me. My favorites for a long time were Yang, Blake, Sun, Qrow, and Nora. And there were other characters I liked and enjoyed like Ren, Ozpin, Ironwood, Jaune, Mercury, Emerald, Ruby, Weiss, Whitley... But they tended to take a backseat while I gushed about how much I loved all the Yang scenes in volume five and how Blake got a bad rep and about how fun and cute I thought Nora was and how freaking awesome and fun Qrow was. But the longer the show went on, the less Team RWBY were actually treated like the main protagonists, while the writing focused on other characters and paid more attention to them.

Another interesting thing to note is that many of the characters that are commonly loved and defended among RWDE posters are characters that either the show or the fandom treats badly.

Oscar gets beat, kidnapped, and attacked more than arguably any of the other mains, while he's also one of the only characters that didn't fully volunteer and was more or less trapped into getting involved. And on top of that, he's an active hero who tries hard, and matters to the villains while having an important role.

Oz not only got mistreated and traumatized by the mains without apology or recognition of everything he went through in the show, he also gets crapped on over and over by the fandom at large, who refuse to recognize him as an abuse victim and try to paint him as a horrible, manipulative, wicked person - all while making tons of excuses for Ruby doing basically the same stuff. And on top of that, he's active and tries hard and matters to the villains while having an important role.

Mercury gets painted as irredeemable scum by a lot of the fandom, who all were ready to forget him and ignore his own past as an abuse victim the second Emerald was no longer around him, and are already making posts about how people only like Mercury or want him to be redeemed because he's a man and writing him off as hopeless. And the show itself have been shafting him and not portraying him very sympathetically, despite the fact that his backstory is arguably more sympathetic than Emerald's (not trying to compare trauma here, just trying to talk about one reason why people are frustrated.) And on top of that, he hasn't actually been featured much since season five, and therefore hasn't yet had his character ruined or complicated.

Likewise, Sun is often treated as a nuisance and a pushy jerk that Blake never even liked by the fandom, who only got in the way. People over-exaggerate a lot of his flaws and downplay his good traits and his role with Blake. And in the Before the Dawn book, the Sun hate gets literally hard to read and the writer is so obviously biased against him that it's a little comical. On top of that, like Mercury, he hasn't actually been featured much since season five, and therefore hasn't had his character ruined or complicated.

Other RWDE favorites like Whitley and Ren are also mistreated or misrepresented by the fandom at large, and favored by RWDE posters. Because honestly, once you start defending someone and trying to get into their head, you're more likely to like and get attached to that character.

I personally always have a problem when I talk about my favorites in RWBY, because if I talk about my favorite characters to write for that I still love the concept of, it'd still be Yang, Qrow, Blake, Nora, and Roman, with James added because after V7 I did start loving his character a lot more. But although I still talk at length about how the characters have been mishandled, when I'm actually discussing how RWBY characters are in canon, my options become limited as far as picking favorites. XD Sun and Mercury haven't been really damaged yet by the show's bad writing, Whitley, May, and Jaune managed to come out of the last couple of seasons mostly looking good, Yang, Ren, and Penny are at least better than most of the others... And Oz is still really good, while Oscar is... On thin ice, but mostly fine I guess.

I can't even credit Ironwood as a canon favorite, because he was horribly done (and Winter was better than most that season too, but so tied up in pushing Ironwood as a villain that I personally can't get past it right now.)

But yeah, I'd say one of the reasons that RWDE posters tend to favor a lot of male characters is because they're simultaneously treated as more important to the plot and given more focus than the woman characters, while at the same time, they're often villainized and treated unfairly by the narrative or the fandom or both. It's definitely not because the RWDE fandom just doesn't like women, it's because the RWBY writers actively struggle to present their women characters as active and important to the plot, while at the same time, they try to say they're great and don't acknowledge their flaws. There's a lot of internalized sexism in RWBY, I think. They made iincredibly flawed woman characters who are constantly overtaken, outmatched, and treated as less important than the men around them. And yet they have them glorified as flawless and amazing badasses with sass. While at the same time, they rely on them being sympathetic by being cute, vulnerable, wide eyed, and teary to get people to squee and aww over how upset the terrible circumstances have made them and how no one can expect them to keep going like this. It makes them feel lackluster and not convincing or compelling. It's like watching Tauriel in the Hobbit movies. Disappointing, a little insulting.

#rwde #anti rwby #rwby hate #rwby bashing #pro ozpin #pro ironwood #anti fndm #anti mkek

45 notes · View notes

genderonthescreen-blog · 5 years

Text

The Problematic Love Interest: No Means Yes?

What do TV and film teach us about love? Well, they teach us that romantic love is very important, that the grand gestures are everything, that true love’s kiss will always break the spell, and, oh yeah, when someone says “no” they really mean “yes.” The lack of consent in movies and TV shows, in scenes that are supposed to be romantic, is shocking. Time and time again I will come across a show or film that looks promising, it usually is, and I am enjoying the film or show. That is before I am shown a scene that is so obviously sexual assault, yet, it is shown as seductive, or romantic, or even funny.

Last summer I watched the movie Blade Runner (1982) for the first time. As an avid fan of Star Wars, I spent most of my pre-teen years drooling over Han Solo (Harrison Ford)—as well as the swashbuckling archaeologist, Dr. Indiana Jones (also Ford). So after re-watching the Star Wars films I was suffering from a Harrison Ford withdrawal, so I decided it was time to check out, supposedly, the next best “Ford Sci-fi Flick”: Blade Runner. Now, in my own personal and unimportant opinion, I don’t think Blade Runner is a very good movie. However, I think it would’ve been much better in my eyes if it weren’t for the rape scene that happens about halfway through the film. In the scene (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IjO8wsjPqbg), the lead character, Rick Deckard, just told his “love interest”, Rachael (Sean Young), that she is an android (the beings the Deckard is supposed to be hunting and killing) and that her human memories are fake. In her moment of distress Deckard makes a move on her. However, she doesn’t respond. She moves away when he tries to kiss her again and quickly gets up to leave his apartment. Deckard becomes angry. He storms in front of her, blocking the path between her and the door, before he grabbing her by the shoulders and shoving her up against the window on the opposite end of the room. He proceeds to force a kiss on her and then tells her to to say to him “Kiss me” and then, after she complies, he tells her to say “I want you” to him. In doing this, Deckard forces her to give him “consent”, thus making the whole assault her fault. Its a disgusting scene that made me wonder: “Why I am supposed to be rooting for this main character?” But honestly the worst part about it is that it’s filmed as a seduction. The music swells as Deckard kisses Rachael, telling the audience that this is a romantic and sensual moment. What it really does, however, is perpetuate the falsehood that when a woman says “no” (either with her words or her body language) she really means “yes.”

These kinds of scenes are very prevalent in older films. The John Hughes classic Sixteen Candles (1984) is chalk full of dubious consent. In one scene (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jmf_sT_IcMc&t=125s), the love interest, Jake (Michael Schoeffling), of the main character, Samantha (Molly Ringwald)—who’s supposed to be a sensitive jock; he just wants a nice girl to love him—hands his current girlfriend, a very drunk Caroline (Haviland Morris), off to Farmer Ted (Anthony Michael Hall) in exchange for a pair of Sam’s underwear. In the kitchen when the two boys are talking about this plan, Jake delivers the infamous line: “I can get a piece of ass anytime I want. Shit, I’ve got Caroline in my bedroom now passed out cold. I could violate her ten different ways if I wanted to.” This line is the precursor to Jake saying how he wants a nice girl who doesn’t party. Honestly, how is he the romantic male lead in this movie and not the predatory creep! Later in the film it is implied that Caroline and Farmer Ted have sex, to which Caroline is very okay with, despite the fact she was totally drunk throughout the whole ordeal (thus, unable to consent), and was also tricked by her boyfriend into thinking that Farmer Ted was her boyfriend, Jake. This perpetuates that same stereotype seen in Blade Runner: “no” means “yes.”

An argument can be made that “These movies are from the eighties! They’re just a product of the times!” And, while Sixteen Candles especially is a product of it’s time, that doesn’t mean this kind of portrayal of “romance” is gone from TV and cinema today. In fact, it’s unfortunately alive and well.

Take the relationship between Daenerys Targaryen (Emilia Clarke) and Khal Drogo (Jason Momoa) from the HBO show Game of Thrones. Daenerys is basically sold into marriage to Drogo by her brother, and proceeds to get raped by her husband multiple times during the beginning of their relationship. However, by the time Khal Drogo makes his exit from the show (SPOILER ALERT! He dies) the two are in love. All is forgiven, and Daenerys is heartbroken by the loss of her husband. This kind of forgiveness of sexual predators in a TV show is quite common. The character Chuck Bass (Ed Westwick), from the classic 2000s show Gossip Girl, forces himself on two different characters during the first season, but all is forgotten barely a few episodes later, and he just becomes an annoying antagonist—and by the end of the series, he’s a dashing love interest!

I hate to say it, but Buffy the Vampire Slayer (one of my favorite TV shows of all time) is another example of this kind of forgetfulness when it comes to sexual assault in TV shows. In the episode “Seeing Red” from season six, there is a scene (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kGWhEgjdLeM ) where the vampire, Spike (James Marsters), attempts to rape Buffy (Sarah Michelle Gellar). These are two characters have been in an “on again, off again” sexual relationship for most of the season. However, Spike has fallen in love with Buffy, and she has not fallen for him. In an attempt to get her to love him back, Spike decides to force himself on her. After a bit of a struggle—where Spike tries to pull off her robe and tackles her to the ground—Buffy kicks him off of her before anything happens, but the damage is done. The problem is Spike still stays a fan favorite on the show and he is very easily redeemed (he gets a soul so all is well!). He is also not only redeemed in the eyes of the viewer, but also in the eyes of Buffy, the victim of his abuse—who, in the next season, actually falls in love with him. These are all classic examples of the actions of a male character, who is a sexual abuser/assaulter, getting forgotten or easily forgiven as the show progresses.

Modern movies still have problems with consent, too. A recent Netflix release titled Sierra Burgess is a Loser (2018) is an example of dubious consent passed off as a sweet romance. The basic plot of this teen romance movie is: a teenage girl, named Sierra (Shannon Purser), cat-fishes this teenage boy, Jamey (Noah Centineo), because she is too insecure to tell him who she really is. Sierra does this with the help of the popular girl from her high school, Veronica (Kristine Froseth), who is the person Jamey thinks he is texting/talking on the phone with. This movie has a LOT of problems, but what I thought the most disturbing part was a scene (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMdjN-sIxw4) where Veronica goes on a date with Jamey as Sierra. Sierra follows the two around on their “date” and texts Veronica instructions on how to act so Jamey doesn’t think something’s up. Towards the end of the evening, Jamey and Veronica are leaning on the hood of his car—Sierra is hiding underneath the car, spying on the two of them—and Jamey leans in for a kiss. Veronica stops him and tells him to close his eyes first before she gestures for Sierra to come out and kiss Jamey herself, and she does. It’s super weird and uncomfortable to watch because this teenage boy is being kissed by someone he’s never met, and without his consent. But, all the while, the music swells, telling the audience that this is a romantic moment. A lot of people were complaining about this movie—like I said, it had many issues (making fun of deaf people, and some off comments about the LGBT community)—but I wish more people were talking about this scene. If the roles were reversed and Jamey was a girl being kissed by this boy who was cat-fishing her, people would be up in arms (because that literally sounds like it was taken out of Sixteen Candles!). But, because Jamey is a boy, people aren’t as upset about this scene.

The movie Wedding Crashers (2005) is a comedy about two guys who have a hobby of (you guessed it) crashing weddings. It’s a very funny movie that I have thoroughly enjoyed. However, this movie makes many jokes about men who have been sexually assaulted—thus, perpetuating the stereotype that men can’t be sexually assaulted because they always want to have sex. There are several scenes that depict sexual coercion and even a scene that could be considered rape! In this scene (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_r1zDwdmSg&has_verified=1), Jeremy (Vince Vaughn) wakes up tied to his bed with a naked Gloria (Isla Fisher), the woman that he’s been sleeping with, sitting on top of him. He begins to ask her what is going on, and she tells him she thinks what’s wrong with their relationship is that they aren’t being adventurous enough. Jeremy tries to protest, but Gloria quickly “shushes” him before shoving a sock into his mouth and covering it with duct tape before the camera cuts away. This scene is depicted as funny, as are all of the other sexual assault scenes in this movie. In the next scene (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6fLskrvsRA also depicted as funny), Jeremy tells his friend, John (Owen Wilson), about what happened to him. Unfortunately, Jeremy is semi-ignored by his friend, who brushes off his complaints and proceeds to go on about the woman he has feelings for. When Jeremy says he wants to leave the house they are staying at and go home, John guilt-trips him into staying (no bro left behind). Later in the film Gloria and Jeremy actually end up getting married! Throughout the film, these scenes are played off as funny, because it’s a man getting sexually assaulted and not a woman. Once again I ask you to switch the roles and pretend that Jeremy is a woman and Gloria is a man. Would people still be laughing if that was the case?

Sexual assault and consent is a serious issue. With the “Time’s Up” and #Metoo movement taking the internet by storm, and so many actresses and actors (and people in general!) coming forward about the sexual assault and mistreatment they experienced in their industry, there is a lot to consider. But the fact that films and TV are still allowing sexual coercion, assault, harassment, and rape to be shot as funny, romantic, sensual, or easily forgiven is sending people the message that sexual assault isn’t a big deal—thus, adding to the problem. This notion is not only wrong, but also dangerous. It is teaching people (especially young people) that consent isn’t important. Future writers, directors, producers, and anyone else involved in making films and TV need to step up to the plate and use their platform to enforce the importance of consent, instead of disregarding it.

Check out these cool sources!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWoP8VpbpYI

https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2018/01/when-pop-culture-sells-dangerous-myths-about-romance/549749/

http://shrcc.org/get-the-facts/what-is-consent/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4062022/

How about this cooler bibliography!

https://vimeo.com/194215274

https://books.google.com/books?id=Kq4-DwAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=consent+in+films&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjNvOrYl5nfAhVws1kKHaiCDBUQuwUIOzAD#v=onepage&q=consent%20in%20films&f=false

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/arts-and-entertainment/wp/2016/12/05/why-the-last-tango-in-paris-rape-scene-is-generating-such-an-outcry-now/?utm_term=.5b8a35fad57e

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-469646/I-felt-raped-Brando.html

1 note · View note

lettenkogay · 7 years

Text

Theory as to why Tenko hates men

*No real spoilers* I haven't finished the game, so I don't know if they directly answer this, but this is my guess. Ok, so there are a couple options for how Tenko could've come to hate men 1. Tenko was sexually assaulted by a man - This option seems to be a prevalent belief. However, it's doesn't actually seem as though it's very probable. The only two cannon victims of sexual abuse in this series, Mikan and Kotoko (correct me if I'm wrong) are both dramatically affected in the way they act. Mikan constantly apologizes, stutters, and assumes people want to do horrible things to her, because of the abuse she suffered. Kotoko comes to hate adults so much that she would help attempt to rid the world of them because of her abuse. Tenko's hatred of men is taken much more lightly than the issues Mikan and Kotoko faced. Not to mention the fact that the series uses it as comedic relief. The only real evidence to support this theory is Tenkos aversion to being touched by a man, but even then it doesn't give off the vibe that she's actually legitimately afraid. I mean, she could beat the shit out of all of the guys there. Specifically, when Tenko hits Saihara until he blacks out in one of the free time events, she takes the time to carry him back to his room afterwords, so obviously she can't hate men *that* much. 2. Tenko is a radical misandrist and is actually really sexist - Yeah I doubt that, and I don't think anybody believes that The more probable ones 1. Tenko had a female friend who was once hurt by a man - With this option, said friend could've been sexually assaulted. But again, it's more likely they were just cheated on or something less severe. This friend could have just been a legitimate friend, a girl Tenko was crushing on, or maybe even a past girlfriend. This would also provide an explanation as to why Tenko was so *immediately* attached to Yumeno. If this friend looked similar to Yumeno, Tenko would feel an obligation to protect her from all the men. 2. Tenko's master hates men/ Tenko works in a male dominated field - In her free time events, Tenko talks about how much she loves and respects her master, implying that this person is a woman. If her master hated men for some reason, and taught Tenko to harbor the same feelings, it would explain Tenko's aversion to men. This could also be coupled with the fact that Akido is a male dominated sport. Given that Tenko is the Ultimate Neo Akido practitioner (I'm gonna go ahead and say the "Neo Akido" is just a part of regular Akido competitions) it means she is the absolute best at it. It seems pretty likely that a bunch of men she beat would be sexist and bitter towards her, explaining in part how she could come to hate men. I personally believe this last one is the most likely out of all of them. But that's just a theory, A GAME THEORY im sorry

#Tenko #tenko chabashira #danganronpa v3 #danganronpa #himiko yumeno #neo akido #tenko's hatred of men

3 notes · View notes

brentrogers · 4 years

Text

Podcast: Male Survivors of Sexual Assault and Abuse

Did you know one in six males are sexually assaulted before their 18th birthday? Unfortunately, many victims are reluctant to come forward due to cultural conditioning. In today’s podcast, Gabe speaks with two psychologists about this very common but somewhat taboo issue. They tackle the prevalent myths surrounding male sexual assault and discuss why so many victims suffer in secrecy.

What can be done? Where can survivors reach out for help? Join us for an in-depth talk on this very important and under-discussed topic.

SUBSCRIBE & REVIEW

Guest information for ‘Male Sexual Assault’ Podcast Episode

Dr. Joan Cook is a clinical psychologist and Associate Professor in the Yale School of Medicine, Department of Psychiatry. She has over 150 scientific publications in the areas of traumatic stress, geriatric mental health and implementation science fields. Dr. Cook has worked clinically with a range of trauma survivors, including combat veterans and former prisoners of war, men and women who have been physically and sexually assaulted in childhood and adulthood, and survivors of the 2001 terrorist attack on the former World Trade Center. She has served as the principal investigator on seven federally-funded grants, was a member of the American Psychological Association (APA) Guideline Development Panel for the Treatment of PTSD and the 2016 President of APA’s Division of Trauma Psychology. Since October 2015, she has published over 80 op-eds in places like CNN, TIME Ideas, The Washington Post and The Hill.

Dr. Amy Ellis is a licensed clinical psychologist and the Assistant Director of the Trauma Resolution and Integration Program (TRIP) at Nova Southeastern University. TRIP is a university-based community mental health center that provides specialized psychological services to individuals age 18 and above who have been exposed to a traumatic situation and are currently experiencing problems in functioning as a result of the traumatic experience. Dr. Ellis has also developed specific clinical programming focusing on trauma-informed affirmative care for sexual and gender minorities as well as gender-based services focusing on male-identifying individuals at TRIP. Dr. Ellis is involved in a variety of leadership activities within the American Psychological Association (APA), including service as a Consulting Editor for three peer-reviewed journals, Guest Editor for Practice Innovations on a special issue dedicated to the role of evidence-based relationship variables in working with sexual and gender minorities, and she is also the Editor for APA’s Division 29 (Psychotherapy) website.

About The Psych Central Podcast Host

Gabe Howard is an award-winning writer and speaker who lives with bipolar disorder. He is the author of the popular book, Mental Illness is an Asshole and other Observations, available from Amazon; signed copies are also available directly from the author. To learn more about Gabe, please visit his website, gabehoward.com.

Computer Generated Transcript for ‘Male Sexual Assault’ Episode

Editor’s Note: Please be mindful that this transcript has been computer generated and therefore may contain inaccuracies and grammar errors. Thank you.

Announcer: You’re listening to the Psych Central Podcast, where guest experts in the field of psychology and mental health share thought-provoking information using plain, everyday language. Here’s your host, Gabe Howard.

Gabe Howard: Welcome to this week’s episode of the Psych Central Podcast. Calling into the show today, we have Dr. Amy Ellis and Dr. Joan Cook. Amy is a licensed clinical psychologist and the assistant director of the Trauma Resolution and Integration Program at Nova Southeastern University, and Joan is a clinical psychologist and associate professor in the Yale School of Medicine, Department of Psychiatry. Amy and Joan, welcome to the show.

Dr. Joan Cook: Thank you. Happy to be here.

Dr. Amy Ellis: Thank you.

Gabe Howard: Well, I am very glad to have both of you, because we have a really big topic today, we’re going to be discussing male survivors of sexual abuse and assault. And I’m a little bit embarrassed to admit when we first started putting together this episode, I thought to myself, is this a subject that we need to cover? Is it big enough? Aren’t we already discussing it? And the research that I did and the stuff that I learned from both of you, so thank you very much, is that it’s actually sort of under-discussed and underreported.

Dr. Joan Cook: Absolutely. And thank you, Gabe, for admitting to that. I think a lot of health care providers, a lot of the public and many male survivors themselves adhere to a number of male rape myths. We need to talk in this country about how rape and sexual assault of boys and men not only as possible, but actually occurs at high rates. If I could share with you just a snippet of how frequently it occurs.

Gabe Howard: Yeah, please, please. That is my next question. What are the prevalence rates?

Dr. Joan Cook: Ok. So I think a lot of people don’t know this, but at least one in six boys are sexually abused before their 18th birthday. One in six. And this number rises to one in four men who are sexually abused across their lifespan. That’s too many.

Gabe Howard: Obviously, any number is too many.

Dr. Joan Cook: Absolutely.

Gabe Howard: But that stat blew me away. At the start of my research for this episode, I believed that the number was half a percent, like it was just ridiculously low.

Dr. Joan Cook: Right? And I think that’s because, let’s face it, people don’t report sexual assault. Both men and women don’t tend to report it to law enforcement agencies or to the FBI. We just don’t have good crime statistics on these. Why? Shame, embarrassment, minimization, and people not believing survivors. You know, a lot of the research and the clinical scholarship that we have on sexual abuse, including the development and testing of psychosocial interventions, really focuses on women. And that’s important for sure. Absolutely. But men and boys who experience sexual abuse, they’re out there and they’re largely overlooked. They’re stigmatized or shamed by the public and sometimes by health care professionals. It’s just not acceptable.

Gabe Howard: I also noticed that pop culture covers everything. But this is not a trope in pop culture. We see the sexual assault of women in Law & Order SVU in primetime television week after week and marathons all weekend. But I can’t really think of any pop culture representation of sexual assault, rape, or trauma in pop culture at all. Outside of that one movie from the 70s with the banjo and that’s largely regarded as like a horror movie. And do you think that this plays into the public dismissing sexual assault on men and boys?

Dr. Amy Ellis: Absolutely. So what you’re picking up on is that this really just isn’t represented. We have amazing celebrities that come out like Tyler Perry who disclose sexual abuse. But it’s not often enough and it’s often with a lot of snarky comments that are written, a lot of trolling, a lot of other things. And I think this really speaks to the toxic masculinity that’s prevalent in our society. The idea that men should be able to ward off sexual abuse or they’re quote unquote, not real men. And that’s something that kind of pervades even around more kind of socially correct, politically correct people. It’s still that idea of like grow a set, or just step up, or how could you let this happen? It’s still a lot of victim blaming that I know women face as well. But I think even more so around men, which just signals to us that there’s an issue in terms of how we view masculinity in general as a society.

Gabe Howard: I feel that we should point out that, of course, we’re not contrasting and comparing male to female assault and sexual abuse in any sort of competitive nature. It’s just that we want to make sure that everybody gets the help that we need. And your research has determined that there’s a lot of men that aren’t getting the support that they need. I mean, anybody who is sexually abused or sexually assaulted, raped deserves good care. And the fact that your research has determined that a lot of men are being left out of this conversation is obviously very problematic.

Dr. Joan Cook: I appreciate that very much, Gabe, because sometimes and this is what we’ve heard from male survivors, too. Sometimes when they go to survivor meetings, you know, they are seen as perpetrators instead of survivors of violence themselves. And so they’re not as welcome at the survivor table or some survivor tables. And then even when they go to some providers, providers have said like, you know, it’s not possible that you were assaulted or you must be gay. You must have wanted it. And so all of those myths and stereotypes keep people from getting the help that they need and deserve. And working on their path to healing. And also, like you said, it is not a competition. Everyone deserves this kind of validation and attention and help improving their lives.

Gabe Howard: I could not agree more. Amy and Joan, let’s get into the meat of your research. One of the first questions that I have is what are the differences in prevalence rates and clinical presentations of men and women with sexual assault abuse histories?

Dr. Joan Cook: The rates aren’t vastly different. As I’ve mentioned earlier, it’s one in six men before their 18th birthday and then that number increases to one in four. Women do have higher rates. The CDC estimates that one in three women experience sexual assault or violence in their lifetime. The presentation, the PTSD, the substance abuse, the depression, anxiety, the suicidal ideation seems somewhat similar. Both sets of sexual abuse survivors experience it. It seems to us clinically that there’s some very prominent psychological symptoms that men have that don’t fit neatly into our diagnostic classification system. So oftentimes with men who’ve experienced sexual abuse, we see intense anger and it’s always there and it’s always seething. But it particularly comes out when they’re feeling threatened or betrayed. We see a lot of shame, a lot of feeling damaged and worried about their masculinity. We see quite a bit of sexual dysfunction, including low sex drive, erectile problems. There’s a lot of chronic pain, difficulties with sleeping. And believe it or not, you know, we don’t talk a lot about men who have eating disorders or difficulties, but we see that as well, including some negative body image. One thing also that we don’t talk about and probably, too, because this carries some shame, is that we see higher rates of sexually transmitted infections, increased sexual risk for HIV and higher sexual compulsivity. And so I think when they present to us clinically and if they’re not acknowledging a sexual abuse history and not because of their own shame, though, that could be, it could also be they haven’t been able to acknowledge it or label it accurately themselves and then connect that experience to the symptoms that they’re having, that I think we’re treating them for other difficulties instead of what’s really driving their symptoms. So they’re getting inadequate treatment.

Gabe Howard: What are some of the barriers that men face in disclosing sexual abuse and their sexual assault histories?

Dr. Amy Ellis: Well, I think it goes back to that concept of toxic masculinity. And so there’s a lot of cultural influences. So, you know, men are supposed to be powerful and invulnerable. And there’s this idea that men should always welcome sexual activity. So you’ve kind of got this just societal barrier around people wanting to come forward. And I think also it boils down to the consequences of disclosure. So are people going to regard your sexual orientation, make some sort of assumption that because you were sexually assaulted, or you must have wanted it or it says something about you. It could even just be about the risk factors involved, coming forward and wondering if you’re going to actually face more violence or more discrimination as a result. So there’s a lot of negativity there, a lot to be afraid of in terms of coming forward and that disclosure. Joan had alluded to it earlier as well, if you’re going to your doctor and your doctor also disbelieves in these things, you might be repeatedly getting shot down. And so disclosure just isn’t a safe option. I mean, honestly, it also boils down to a lack of resources or a lack of awareness of certain resources. There’s a few non-profits out there that are dedicated to working with masculine identifying individuals. And you have to know that there is a trauma in order to seek out these resources. A lot of men wouldn’t use the label of I’ve been traumatized. I’ve been sexually abused. They just don’t use that language. So really trying to capture men and their experiences and then having them be aware of what might be out there for them.

Gabe Howard: You spoke a couple of times about some of the myths that people believe about male sexual assault survivors. One of them is their sexual orientation. One of them is whether or not they’re strong. What are some other common myths regarding the sexual assault of boys and men?

Dr. Joan Cook: The first, and one of the largest, is the myth that boys and men can’t be forced to have sex against their will. And the truth is, the fact is, is that any individual can be forced to have sex against their will. If someone doesn’t want to have sex or is not able to give fully informed consent, then they’re being forced into unwanted sexual activity. Another huge one is that men who have an erection when assaulted must have wanted it or they must have enjoyed it. And the truth is that many, if not all the men that we work with have experienced unwanted or unintentional arousal during a sexual assault. Just because a man gets an erection in a painful, traumatic experience does not mean they want it. And that kind of arousal from abuse can be confusing for survivors. But what Amy and I say to the people that we work with, and the people that are participating in our large research study, is that like our heart beat or shallow breathing, physiological reactions occur like erections and they’re outside of our control. And that doesn’t mean that you brought it on. There are others, too. We could go on and on. Sadly, there’s many. One that we were reminded recently talking to one of the male survivors who lead these peer led interventions that we have is that if you are abused by a woman, the myth is that you should welcome that. So, you know, hooray for you. And the truth is, no, you should not welcome that at all. So people believe that if an older woman abuses a younger man, that should be considered a good thing. And it’s certainly not. It can have devastating consequences.

Gabe Howard: And we’ve seen this play out nationally more than once where a teacher will sexually assault a teenager. You know, a 12, 13, 14 year old and an adult woman is sexually taking advantage of that person. And we hear the jokes. They’re very common. And I remember this portrayal on South Park where all of the police officers were saying nice and giving the kid five and

Dr. Amy Ellis: Oh, yes.

Gabe Howard: The kid was traumatized. And to South Park’s credit, which I never thought I’d be saying on the show,

Dr. Joan Cook: [Laughter]

Gabe Howard: They were showing how stupid that is. The young boy was portrayed as traumatized. The teacher was portrayed as an abuser, and nobody wanted to do anything about it except for the young boy’s parents. And how ridiculous that looked. Again, very odd that I would bring up South Park in this space. But I do think that they did a good job showing how ridiculous it is that we’re OK with an adult having sex with a child and we all want to give people high fives.

Dr. Amy Ellis: Yeah. It goes right back to those barriers because if you see that happening around you, then why are you going to step forward and disclose? There is a lot to be fearful of. And to be invalidated about.

Gabe Howard: I completely agree with that. Especially for trauma, because sometimes we don’t know how we feel about traumas. We feel that something is wrong. But if the people that we trust the most are praising us, that can be very confusing, right? If the older adults in our lives are like, yeah, that’s great way to go. And you’re like, I feel badly about this, but that’s not what I’m hearing from the people in my life whom I trust.

Dr. Amy Ellis: Absolutely. And so really, family support, peer support, those are actually protective factors. So even when a child is sexually abused, knowing that they have their parents that they can turn to or peers who will be receptive or even school officials who will hear that and validate those experiences, that actually kind of staves off some of the negative consequences of traumatization. And so it really just speaks to the power of being believed. One of the most staggering statistics to me is that on average, men take 25 years to disclose their sexual abuse. That’s almost a lifetime, that’s a quarter of a lifetime of

Gabe Howard: Wow.

Dr. Amy Ellis: Keeping that locked up and inside. And yet we know disclosure and having social support are key factors in someone’s recovery and healing.

Gabe Howard: Please correct me if I’m wrong, but in this case, it’s not a matter of being believed because the adults and the authorities may believe you. They just don’t care or they don’t think that it’s anything to be worried about. So that’s two problems. Problem number one is will I be believed? And problem number two is will I be taken seriously? And I imagine that this is what leads to the statistic of it taking 25 years for a male to report, because they want to make sure that they have their own arsenal, their own agency, or maybe that’s how long it took to meet somebody whom they trust enough to be by their side. I would say probably stereotypically a spouse or maybe other male survivors.

Dr. Joan Cook: Amy and I conducted a number of focus groups a few years back with a variety of survivors, different ages, different race and ethnicities, different sexual orientations. And one of the key things people told us was that they wish we could get to boys and men and help prevent this. And if we couldn’t help prevent this horrible event and for some people, it’s not a single event. It’s ongoing or it happens to them once and then they get revictimized again by someone else at a later point in their life. They said, if you can’t help us to prevent this, can you please help us get to boys and men who’ve had this experience? Help us get to them sooner and help them heal from this. And know, they’re not alone. And one way to do that, that Amy and I have really tried to catapult and take it to the next level is giving people the validation and the support through other male survivors, through peer support. That’s what our latest grant is focused on.

Gabe Howard: We’ll be right back after these messages.

Sponsor Message: Hey folks, Gabe here. I host another podcast for Psych Central. It’s called Not Crazy. He hosts Not Crazy with me, Jackie Zimmerman, and it is all about navigating our lives with mental illness and mental health concerns. Listen now at Psych Central.com/NotCrazy or on your favorite podcast player.

Sponsor Message: This episode is sponsored by BetterHelp.com. Secure, convenient, and affordable online counseling. Our counselors are licensed, accredited professionals. Anything you share is confidential. Schedule secure video or phone sessions, plus chat and text with your therapist whenever you feel it’s needed. A month of online therapy often costs less than a single traditional face to face session. Go to BetterHelp.com/PsychCentral and experience seven days of free therapy to see if online counseling is right for you. BetterHelp.com/PsychCentral.

Gabe Howard: We’re back with Dr. Amy Ellis and Dr. Joan Cook discussing male survivors of sexual abuse and assault. Let’s shift gears over to treatment. What are some common treatment themes for male survivors?

Dr. Amy Ellis: First and foremost, when we’re considering treatment, it really starts with defining trauma and traumatization. So as I said, a lot of men do not label their experiences as trauma. That word carries a lot of weight. They seemingly apply it towards combat trauma or an accident and they tend to minimize experiences of unwanted sexual experiences. So just starting with identifying it and then also kind of determining the impact of that on their life, how their trauma has affected their relationships, their work, their symptoms of depression or anxiety, et cetera. As we’re talking about it, it starts to also play into defining and understanding masculinity. So really understanding how someone defines their own masculinity, how they define it in their particular cultural influences and then what their goals are around that. And so debunking these misconceptions or myths about male survivors could be a real focus of treatment. And then honestly, it’s treatment like any other treatment. Working on a lot of the other comorbid symptoms. A lot of men will present with depression and anxiety instead of the typical symptoms that we see in traumatization, post-traumatic stress disorder. And so it just really boils down to focusing on depression, anxiety, how things are playing out in the everyday here and now and tailoring our interventions to make sure that they are considering gender-based principles.

Gabe Howard: I think that people understand post-traumatic stress disorder when it comes to war, because we all acknowledge that war is awful, nobody wants to go to war, we never want to go to war again, it sort of has a good branding message, right? War is bad and it makes you sad. Whereas sexual assault, most people want to have a healthy sex life and they’ve been traumatized sexually. So I imagine that that causes some confusion. I think that it would be very, very difficult to have something that you like hurt you. We are sexual beings. So it’s a desire that most people have. So I can imagine all of those things working together. And then, of course, you take in all of the barriers and misconceptions. I’m starting to get a really good idea of how difficult this can be and how much work that you’ve had to put in to narrow down treatments that work and that men respond to. Is this what you found in your work?

Dr. Amy Ellis: I think you’re hitting it spot on in terms of some of the sexual considerations, you’re nailing down some other treatment themes. A lot of men will come in questioning their sexual orientation or their gender identity because of the experiences that have happened for them. And also exploring how to have a healthy sex life. So sometimes we’ll see sexual compulsivity or hypersexuality. Sometimes we see hyposexuality. So lack of sex drive or difficulties with maintaining an erection, as Joan had said earlier, too. So it is common for male survivors to come in and question and cope with some of these issues on a somewhat regular basis. And part of what helps is having that peer support, knowing, oh, you too. I’m not alone. So I think really the peer based support is what we have found really is aimed at healing.

Gabe Howard: Aside from peer support, which we’ve discussed and going to a therapist, what are some professional and community resources for men with histories of sexual abuse and assault?

Dr. Joan Cook: Well, there are quite a number of professional and community resources. Some of our favorites, there’s a wonderful non-profit organization, been around for at least 25 years. It’s called MaleSurvivor. It’s based out of New York City. It provides online free discussion groups for survivors and family members, chat rooms, a therapist directory. There’s another wonderful organization called MenHealing, which is based out of Utah. And they host weekends of healing, they call them, and they’re sort of retreats where you can go and meet other survivors. And they’re led by professionals. Certainly, within the APA, Amy and I have been very active in Division 56, which is the division of trauma psychology. And on their Web site, we developed free Web based resources for male survivors and for psychologists who are looking to work with male survivors clinically and research wise.

Gabe Howard: To shift gears a little bit along the same lines, what are some resources for family members and friends to help male sexual abuse survivors?

Dr. Joan Cook: On those Web sites, MenHealing and MaleSurvivor, they do have discussion forums and fact sheets that family members can go to and read about and see. I also like the V.A. has what’s called a National Center for PTSD. And on there they have, again, free factsheets, web resources, and they have incredible videos called About Face. And they feature veterans with a range of traumas, combat, military, sexual trauma, etc. And family members talking about the pain that they have experienced and the pathways to their healing. Some of the veterans who have a range of trauma experiences don’t receive the support and care that they deserve and their need. Understandably, their family members don’t understand or if they’re jacked up with their symptoms and they’re angry all the time. Those family members can be traumatized as well. So sometimes it’s not as easy for the veterans to explain themselves to their friends and family members. And it’s not so easy for their family members to come in and talk to a psychologist like me and Amy and receive psycho education and support. So sometimes these videos can be really helpful. So sometimes I will tell the veterans that I work with, ask your family member if they’re willing to sit privately, in the confines of their own home, and watch some of these videos and see some of the family members talk about their experiences. And sometimes it’s a little easier to be more empathetic to someone else than it is to be empathetic to your own loved one.

Gabe Howard: Joan, that is so true, we see that in substance abuse. We see that in mental illness. I am not surprised to hear how powerful peer support is, and I’m not surprised to hear how powerful it is to meet with other people outside of your friends and family to get the support you need, because this is big. This is a big thing. And you, you and Amy, have both taught me so much. Thank you. Thank you for everything. I really, really appreciate it.

Dr. Amy Ellis: Oh, my God thank you. Thank you for giving us this space.

Dr. Joan Cook: Exactly. We are in awe and extremely grateful. Thank you for helping us shed light on this very deserving and marginalized population.

Gabe Howard: Oh, it is my pleasure. Amy, I understand that you and Joan are running a study. Can you give us the details and where to find the study?

Dr. Amy Ellis: Yes, absolutely. We have a large study going on right now where we’re recruiting folks who are male, identifying sexual abuse survivors. And we’re going to be randomizing them to groups of their peers, led by male identifying peers who have gone through like 30 to 40 hours of training. And it’s six one and a half hour sessions that participants can go in to. So check out our Web site. It’s www.PeersForMensHealthStudy.com. We are actively recruiting through 2021 and we will just be constantly running groups over and over and over again as we get more people. And even if you are a professional, there’s our contact information on there, we’re happy to consult, talk, et cetera. If you have people you want to refer to or you just want to check out more about our team and what we’re doing, we’d love to connect with you. Always looking to spread the word and spread education.

Gabe Howard: Thank you so much, Amy. And please share the Web site with anybody you know who may need it. Again, it’s PeersForMensHealthStudy.com. And of course, the show notes will contain the link as well. Thank you all for listening to this week’s episode of the Psych Central Podcast. And remember, you can get one week of free, convenient, affordable, private online counselling anytime, anywhere, simply by visiting to BetterHelp.com/PsychCentral. Also, wherever you downloaded this podcast, please give us as many stars as you feel comfortable with. Use your words. Tell us why you like it. Share us on social media. If you have any questions about the show, you can hit us up at [email protected]. Tell us what you like, what you don’t, or what topics you would like to see. We’ll see everybody next week.

Announcer: You’ve been listening to The Psych Central Podcast. Want your audience to be wowed at your next event? Feature an appearance and LIVE RECORDING of the Psych Central Podcast right from your stage! For more details, or to book an event, please email us at [email protected]. Previous episodes can be found at PsychCentral.com/Show or on your favorite podcast player. Psych Central is the internet’s oldest and largest independent mental health website run by mental health professionals. Overseen by Dr. John Grohol, Psych Central offers trusted resources and quizzes to help answer your questions about mental health, personality, psychotherapy, and more. Please visit us today at PsychCentral.com. To learn more about our host, Gabe Howard, please visit his website at gabehoward.com. Thank you for listening and please share with your friends, family, and followers.

Podcast: Male Survivors of Sexual Assault and Abuse syndicated from

0 notes

positivepsychologyinterventions · 4 years

Text

Podcast: Male Survivors of Sexual Assault and Abuse

What can be done? Where can survivors reach out for help? Join us for an in-depth talk on this very important and under-discussed topic.

SUBSCRIBE & REVIEW

Guest information for ‘Male Sexual Assault’ Podcast Episode

About The Psych Central Podcast Host

Computer Generated Transcript for ‘Male Sexual Assault’ Episode

Editor’s Note: Please be mindful that this transcript has been computer generated and therefore may contain inaccuracies and grammar errors. Thank you.

Dr. Joan Cook: Thank you. Happy to be here.

Dr. Amy Ellis: Thank you.

Gabe Howard: Yeah, please, please. That is my next question. What are the prevalence rates?

Gabe Howard: Obviously, any number is too many.

Dr. Joan Cook: Absolutely.

Gabe Howard: But that stat blew me away. At the start of my research for this episode, I believed that the number was half a percent, like it was just ridiculously low.

Gabe Howard: What are some of the barriers that men face in disclosing sexual abuse and their sexual assault histories?

Dr. Amy Ellis: Oh, yes.

Gabe Howard: The kid was traumatized. And to South Park’s credit, which I never thought I’d be saying on the show,

Dr. Joan Cook: [Laughter]

Gabe Howard: Wow.

Dr. Amy Ellis: Keeping that locked up and inside. And yet we know disclosure and having social support are key factors in someone’s recovery and healing.

Gabe Howard: We’ll be right back after these messages.

Gabe Howard: Aside from peer support, which we’ve discussed and going to a therapist, what are some professional and community resources for men with histories of sexual abuse and assault?

Gabe Howard: To shift gears a little bit along the same lines, what are some resources for family members and friends to help male sexual abuse survivors?

Dr. Amy Ellis: Oh, my God thank you. Thank you for giving us this space.

Dr. Joan Cook: Exactly. We are in awe and extremely grateful. Thank you for helping us shed light on this very deserving and marginalized population.

Gabe Howard: Oh, it is my pleasure. Amy, I understand that you and Joan are running a study. Can you give us the details and where to find the study?

from World of Psychology https://ift.tt/2Q4K3tt via IFTTT

#IFTTT #World of Psychology

0 notes

trendingnewsb · 6 years

Text

The Struggle to Predictand PreventToxic Masculinity

Terrie Moffitt has been trying to figure out why men are terrible for more than 25 years. Or, to calibrate: Why some men are really terrible—violent, criminal, dangerous—but most men are not. And, while she’s at it, how to tell which man is going to become which.

A small number of people are responsible for the vast majority of crimes. Many of those people display textbook “antisocial behavior”—technically, a serious disregard for other people’s rights—as adolescents. The shape of the problem is called the age-crime curve, arrests plotted against the age of the offender. It looks like a shark’s dorsal fin, spiking in the teenage years and then long-tailing off to the left.

In 1992, Moffitt, now a psychologist at Duke University, pitched an explanation for that shape: The curve covers two separate groups. Most people don’t do bad things. Some people only do them as teenagers. And a very small number start doing them as toddlers and keep doing them until they go to prison or die. Her paper became a key hypothesis in psychology, criminology, and sociology, cited thousands of times.

In a review article in Nature Human Behaviour this week, Moffitt takes a ride through two decades of attempts to validate the taxonomy. Not for girls, Moffitt writes, because even though she studies both sexes, “findings have not reached consensus.” But for boys and men? Oh yeah.

To be clear, Moffitt isn’t trying to develop a toxicology of toxic masculinity here. As a researcher she’s interested in the interactions of genes and environment, and the reasons some delinquent children—but not all—turn into crime-committing adults. That’s a big enough project. But at this exact cultural moment, with women of the #MeToo movement calling sexual harassers and abusers to account just as mass shootings feel as if they’ve become a permanent recurring event—and when almost every mass shooter, up to and including the recent school shooting in Parkland, Florida, has been a man—I’m inclined to try to find explanations anywhere that seems plausible. US women are more likely to be killed by partners than anyone else. Men commit the vast majority of crimes in the US. So it’s worth querying Moffitt’s taxonomy to see if it offers any order to that chaos, even if it wasn’t built for it.

“Grown-ups who use aggression, intimidation, and force to get what they want have invariably been pushing other people around since their very early childhood,” Moffitt says via email from a rural vacation in New Zealand. “Their mothers report they were difficult babies, nursery day-care workers say they are difficult to control, and when all the other kids give up hitting and settle in as primary school pupils, teachers say they don’t. Their record of violating the rights of others begins surprisingly early, and goes forward from there.”

So if you could identify those kids then, maybe you could make things better later? Of course, things are way more complicated than that.

Since that 1993 paper, hundreds of studies have tested pieces of Moffitt’s idea. Moffitt herself has worked on a few prospective studies, following kids through life to see if they fall into her categories, and then trying to figure out why.

For example, she worked with the Dunedin Study, which followed health outcomes for more than 1,000 boys and girls in New Zealand starting in the early 1970s. Papers published from the data have included looks at marijuana use, physical and mental health, and psychological outcomes. Moffitt and her colleagues found that about a quarter of the males in the study fit the criteria she’d laid out for “adolescence limited” antisociability; they’re fine until they hit their teens, then they do all sorts of bad stuff, and then they stop. And 10 percent were “life-course persistent”—they have trouble as children, and it doesn’t stop. As adolescents, all had about the same rates of bad conduct.

But as children, the LCP boys scored much higher on a set of specific risks. Their mothers were younger. They tended to have been disciplined more harshly, and have experienced more family strife as kids. They scored lower on reading, vocabulary, and memory tests, and had a lower resting heart rate—some researchers think that people feel lower heart rates as discomfort and undertake riskier behaviors in pursuit of the adrenaline highs that’ll even them out. “LCP boys were impulsive, hostile, alienated, suspicious, cynical, and callous and cold toward others,” Moffitt writes of the Dunedin subjects in her Nature Human Behaviour article. As adults, “they self-reported excess violence toward partners and children.” They had worse physical and mental health in their 30s, were more likely to be incarcerated, and were more likely to attempt suicide.

Other studies have found much the same thing. A small number of identifiable boys turn into rotten, violent, unhappy men.

Could Moffitt’s taxonomy account for sexual harassers and abusers? In one sense, it seems unlikely: Her distinction explicitly says by adulthood there should only be a small number of bad actors, yet one of the lessons of #MeToo has been that every woman, it seems, has experienced some form of harassment.

Meta-analyses of the incidence of workplace sexual harassment vary in their outcomes, but a large-scale one from 2003 that covered 86,000 women reported that 56 percent experienced “potentially harassing” behaviors and 24 percent had definitely been harassed. Other studies get similar results.

But as pollsters say, check the cross-tabs. Harassment has sub-categories. Many—maybe most—women experience the gamut of harassing behaviors, but sub-categories like sexual coercion (being forced to have sex as a quid pro quo or to avoid negative consequences) or outright assault are rarer than basic institutional sexism and jerky, inappropriate comments. “What women are more likely to experience is everyday sexist behavior and hostility, the things we would describe as gender harassment,” says John Pryor, a psychologist at Illinois State University who studies harassment.

Obviously, any number greater than zero here is too high. And studies of prevalence can’t tell you if so many women are affected because all men harass at some low, constant ebb or few men do it, like, all the time. Judging by reports of accusations, the same super-creepy men who plan out sexual coercion may also impulsively grope and assault women. Those kind of behaviors, combined with the cases where many more accusers come forward after the first one, seem to me to jibe with the life-course persistent idea. “Sometimes people get caught for the first time as an adult, but if we delve into their history, the behavior has been there all along,” Moffitt says. “Violating the rights of others is virtually always a life-long lifestyle and an integral part of a person’s personality development.”

That means it’s worth digging into people’s histories. Whisper networks have been the de facto means of protecting women in the workplace; the taxonomy provides an intellectual framework for giving them a louder voice, because it suggests that men with a history of harassment and abuse probably also have a future of it.

Now, some writers have used the idea of toxic masculinity to draw a line between harassment, abuse, and mass shootings. They’re violent, and the perpetrators tend to be men. But here, Moffitt’s taxonomy may be less applicable.

Despite what the past few years have felt like, mass shootings are infrequent. And many mass shooters end up committing suicide or being killed themselves, so science on them is scant. “Mass shootings are such astonishingly rare, idiosyncratic, and multicausal events that it is impossible to explain why one individual decides to shoot his or her classmates, coworkers, or strangers and another does not,” write Benjamin Winegard and Christopher Ferguson in their chapter of The Wiley Handbook of the Psychology of Mass Shootings.

That said, researchers have found a few commonalities. The shooters are often suicidal, or more precisely have stopped caring whether they live or die, says Adam Lankford, a criminologist at the University of Alabama. Sometimes they’re seeking fame and attention. And they share a sense that they themselves are victims. “That’s how they justify attacking others,” Lankford says. “Sometimes the perceptions are based in reality—I was bullied, or whatever—but sometimes they can be exacerbated by mental health problems or personality characteristics.”

Though reports on mass shooters often say that more than half of them are also domestic abusers, that number needs some unpacking. People have lumped together mass shootings of families—domestic by definition—with public mass shootings like the one in Las Vegas, or school shootings. Disaggregate the public active shooters from the familicides and the number of shooters with histories of domestic abuse goes down. (Of course, that doesn’t change preposterously high number of abused women murdered by their partners outside of mass shooting events.)

What may really tip the mass shooter profile away from Moffitt’s taxonomy, though, is that people in the life-course persistent cohort do uncontrolled, crazy stuff all the time. Yes, some mass shooters have a history of encounters with law enforcement, let’s say. But some don’t. Mass shootings are, characteristically, highly planned events. “I’m not saying it’s impossible to be a mass shooter and have poor impulse control, but if you have poor impulse control you won’t be able to go for 12 months of planning an attack without ending up in jail first,” Lankford says.

Moffitt isn’t trying to build a unified field theory of the deadly patriarchy. When I suggest that the societal structures that keep men in power relative to women, generally, might explain the behavior of her LCP cohort, she disagrees. “If sexual harassment and mass shootings were the result of cultural patriarchy and societal expectations for male behavior, all men would be doing it all the time,” Moffitt says. “Even though media attention creates the impression that these forms of aggression are highly prevalent and all around us, they are nevertheless still extremely rare. Most men are trustworthy, good, and sensible.”

She and her colleagues continue to look for hard markers for violence or lack of impulse control, genes or neurobiological anomalies. (A form of the gene that codes for a neurotransmitter called monoamine oxidase inhibitor A might give some kids protection against lifelong effects of maltreatment, she and her team have found. By implication not having that polymorphism, then, could predispose a child raised under adverse circumstances to psychopathology as an adult.) Similarly, nobody yet knows what digital-native kids in either cohort will do when they move their bad behavior online. One might speculate that it looks a lot like GamerGate and 4chan, though that sociological and psychological work is still in early days.

But for now, Moffitt and her co-workers have identified risk factors and childhood conditions that seem to create these bad behaviors, or allow them to flourish. That’s the good news. “We know a lifestyle of aggression and intimidation toward others starts so young,” Moffitt says. “It could be preventable.”

Read more: https://www.wired.com/story/the-struggle-to-predictand-preventtoxic-masculinity/

from Viral News HQ https://ift.tt/2qVBXpg via Viral News HQ

#IFTTT #Viral News HQ

0 notes

mammothstrengthx · 6 years

Text

Those 3 Little Words..Performance Enhancing…

The fact 101% of the people reading that title filled in the black with DRUGS is very telling. It just goes to show that PED use is prevalent. You would think that it would mostly be restricted to the Professional ranks, where any competitive advantage would lead to a bigger pay day. However, this is not the case. Let’s face it, we live in a society where alcohol, tobacco and illegal narcotics are used on a daily basis. With the exception of marijuana (sorry Republicans), none of them have any particular health benefits other than numbing the senses to escape the world around you.

PED’s on the other hand increase your ability to do the things you want to be good at. So why would it come as a surprise that the number of people that actually use them is several orders of magnitude more than the Average Joe might imagine? Unfortunately the number of PED users is not the only thing that Mr. Average Joe is ignorant of. Human beings are pattern seeking mammals, and are prone to labeling something, throwing it in a box and never thinking about it again. That tendency is perpetuated by the information age that we currently live in. If something wants to get our attention it better be something we can digest in 140 characters or less, be related to an adorable kitten, or be in some state of undress. As a result, despite walking around with the culmination of human intelligence in our smart phone, the majority of people seem to choose speed and ignorance over careful study and actual KNOWLEDGE.

How does that apply to performance enhancing drugs? Well you get people that think anabolic steroids are a magical elixir brewed by the Devil himself to destroy the integrity of sports and kill off every first born male child. Of course these same people, with no personal experience whatsoever are fairly certain if they had just “cheated” and used steroids they would have made it to Pros themselves. Unfortunately, once that delusional belief finally takes hold it’s not long before they are out in a field recording videos of their passing skilz, and claiming they could throw a football over a mountain. I mean if you can convince yourself that one demonstrably false idea is true, then the floodgates open and you can believe all kinds of batshit insane things that make you feel better.

“How much you wanna make a bet I can throw a football over them mountains?... Yeah... Coach woulda put me in fourth quarter, we would've been state champions. No doubt. No doubt in my mind.” –Uncle Rico”

Here in my home town of reality it is fairly easy to see that this just isn’t so. However, it is my personal belief that the bitterness caused by the aforementioned delusions are part of the vilification of steroid use by athletes. That along with a healthy dose of propaganda from the medical community, and you have a general public that think that people are droppin dead from anabolic steroid use every day. All I can say to that is “Show Me the Bodies…”

When you actually ask the anti-steroid crowd to produce evidence of all these deaths they don’t really have much to offer. It is like any other “faith based belief”, when you convince yourself of something with little to no evidence then you are admitting that evidence doesn't matter to you. And whenever an athlete dies with steroids in his system (or is known to have used them at any point) then that is always one if not the top reason for their death as far as the media is concerned. I honestly believe that if Mark McGwire died tomorrow of a snake bite, somehow his steroid use which obviously compromised his immune system would be responsible. The rules of modern “journalism”…Don't let the facts get in the way of a good story.

This Graph shows the mortality rates of people who use tobacco and alcohol compared to anabolic steroids. It should be noted that 45 million people use tobacco and nearly 100 million people use alcohol. There isn’t any such quantitative data for anabolic steroid users (Center for Disease Control 2011). [Read more]

None of this is to suggest that anabolic steroids are necessarily “safe”. If you have any kind of pre-existing condition then a substance that cause growth can exacerbate the situation. As with anything else in life the safety of something is directly related to the person using it. Guns are perfectly safe, in the hands of someone trained in gun safety. Most people would consider hammers even safer, and yet hammers are responsible for hundreds of deaths each year.

Anyone that has read anything I write knows what a big fan of IRONY I am. And the discussion about PED’s is rife with it. I have to admit that I sometimes am bored enough to listen to sports talk radio. And the local channel here is always getting into the anti-PED discussion. Then when they go to commercial you find out that one of their sponsors is a local HRT Clinic. In case you didn't know, hormone replacement therapy is the legal way to use anabolic steroids and growth hormone. All you have to do is convince a Doc that you have lost a little pep in your step, give them your insurance information, pay your deductible and BAM…suddenly PED’s are ok. Apparently cheating death and the aging process is socially acceptable. What is also funny is it is socially acceptable for doctors and lawyers to abuse caffeine and other stimulants to get through school and internship. But a professional athlete that chooses to use PED’s to increase his job performance is EVIL? Speaking of performance enhancement, how many guys die from Viagra use every year?

Now before you make the mistake of thinking that I am advocating cheating, please know that I AM NOT! When you compete in a sport that says “doing this is against the rules”, and you do it anyway then you are by definition a cheater. I am simply questioning the rules, and attempting to point out the inconsistency of the general public’s moral judgment.

POP QUIZ HOT SHOT!!

Why are performance ENHANCING drugs illegal, while performance debilitating drugs such as alcohol and tobacco are legal?!

A) Politics

B) Ignorance

C) Misinformation/Propaganda

D) The Myth of The Level Playing Field

E) All of the above

If you answered anything other than E) All of the Above, I’m sorry but we have some wonderful parting gifts for you. Obviously politics play a huge role in this equation. Alcohol and tobacco companies have HUGE lobbying budgets, and are huge profit generating industries. Unfortunately, there is no corporation that would stand to benefit if PED’s were legalized. And make no mistake about it money makes the world go around.

Of course ignorance and misinformation play its part in this as well. The general public, mostly due to apathy, is at the mercy of CNN and FOX for fair and balanced reporting on issues. Again as I said before, if you aren't really concerned with actual facts and evidence, then you will believe whatever story someone tells you. Truthfully PED’s just seem to be one of those anomalies that gets lumped into the “Drugs are bad mmmmmkay” mentality of Joe Six Pack.

As much as all of the other reason have something to do with PED’s being illegal; I would argue that the myth of the Level Playing field is the most influential. For some reason, especially in the United States people think that sports are somehow sacred, and that the records involved in these sports are the Holiest of Holies.

In some strange way I suppose it makes sense. If sports fans didn't have statistics and records to compare to other fans there would be no more sports hate and pissing contests. And then *gasp* people would have to accept that sports are just ENTERTAINMENT just like movies and music. As an aside, think of how ridiculous it would be if people got into drunken fist fights at movie theaters over who’s favorite actor was better. See what happens when things are put into context.

The truth is that people have been using drugs of all kinds for the entirety of human civilization. It is only recently that we have deemed some of those drugs illegal. The “War on Drugs” has been an epic failure, and has not served to curb people’s use of drugs. It has only served to turn law abiding citizens into criminals. The same can be said for PED’s. Athletes are competitive by nature, and to get to the very elite level you are always looking for a way to make yourself better. The legality of PED’s have turned World Record performances into *Asterisks, and left a black mark on the athletes name. Guess what, Mark McGwire's homeruns STILL entertained you, and Lance Armstrong STILL raised HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS! So is the problem the athletes, or the laws?

Many fans are opposed to athletes using PED’s, but they also want to see records being broken and they celebrate bigger, stronger, faster without the slightest bit of acknowledgement to the irony of the situation. Don’t for a second believe that fans give a shit about the players. They want to be entertained, and when the players get a little long in the tooth, they will want them put out to pasture. So why wouldn’t a professional athlete dabble in PED’s to extend his professional career a year or two?! How many of those same fans wouldn’t do the EXACT SAME THING if they had a chance to earn a couple Million Dollars?!

Another thing you will hear is the claim that they are worried about the children, “what about the children” they cry. By that same logic, shouldn’t they be trying to get drugs and alcohol out of the music industry? Wouldn’t society be so much better for our children, and for our future if everyone was a teetotaler with regards to all drugs?! And since it is obvious that you don't care about Pro Athletes once they get past their prime entertainment years, why exactly should the athletes care about being role models to YOUR CHILDREN?!

Here’s the thing, and you may not want to hear it, but if you honestly think that would be a good thing then be careful what you wish for. You would have to put an *Asterisk next to the majority of the past 100 years. There would be no more records broken in your lifetime, and the music industry would suck worse than it already does. Again I am not sayin that athletes should cheat, they should not. I am suggesting it is hypocrisy of the highest order to make PED's illegal (unless they are part of HRT..thus proving their medical benefit) while alcohol and tobacco are legal.

My point is NOT to advocate PED use. My point is to advocate education. If you think PED's (or any drug for that matter) should be illegal then you should have solid reasoning behind it. If your only reason is FEAR of what might happen if they were legal, then really is that even an argument?! If you are afraid of "what might happen", then shouldn't you be outraged at what IS happening with regards to alcohol and tobacco. You seriously are stepping over the bodies of hundreds of thousands of people that die each year from alcohol and tobacco abuse to try to find one or two people that might possibly have died from steroid use. This kind of inconsistent moral outrage, and the hypocrisy is staggering to try to comprehend. I will close with the my question from earlier, and I welcome all different points of view…

Why are performance ENHANCING drugs illegal, while performance debilitating drugs such as alcohol and tobacco are legal?!

Read additional information on: http://mammothstrength.com

0 notes

trendingnewsb · 6 years

Text

The Struggle to Predictand PreventToxic Masculinity

So if you could identify those kids then, maybe you could make things better later? Of course, things are way more complicated than that.

Other studies have found much the same thing. A small number of identifiable boys turn into rotten, violent, unhappy men.

Read more: https://www.wired.com/story/the-struggle-to-predictand-preventtoxic-masculinity/

from Viral News HQ https://ift.tt/2qVBXpg via Viral News HQ

#IFTTT #Viral News HQ

0 notes

mammothstrengthx · 6 years

Text

Those 3 Little Words..Performance Enhancing…

POP QUIZ HOT SHOT!!

Why are performance ENHANCING drugs illegal, while performance debilitating drugs such as alcohol and tobacco are legal?!

A) Politics

B) Ignorance

C) Misinformation/Propaganda

D) The Myth of The Level Playing Field

E) All of the above

Why are performance ENHANCING drugs illegal, while performance debilitating drugs such as alcohol and tobacco are legal?!