MAP Forum

Here's an essay I'm working on based on a line of thought I argued about on ATF, a while ago. Please tell me what you think, or any suggestions.

Sex-positivity depends on viewing sex as a normal part of life. However we hold sexual trauma to be distinctly more extreme than other forms of trauma. Does sex-positivity require us to be less sensitive to sexual trauma?
From the outset this line of thinking would come across as absurd, since trauma is a subjective experience, and if people feel more traumatized by sexual trauma than other kinds of traumas, isn't this a meaningless question to ask? I would say we can't know for certain that this is universal or immutable. It may be that at different points in time, sexual trauma wasn't as intense as it is now. It may be that the intensity of sexual trauma is iatrogenic, for example.
The second issue is that being less sensitive seems callous. However, if it's the case that intense feelings about sexual trauma are brought about by people treating it with more gravity than is actually warranted, then we would have a moral obligation to avoid taking such traumas as seriously as they have been.
Isn't sexual trauma necessarily more intense because of the nature of sex, because it involves physical intimacy and violation of the will of another? Well, violation of the will isn't exclusive to sexual trauma, and if we say that people shouldn't be judged for the number of people they have slept with (as is implied by sex positivity) then physical intimacy shouldn't be viewed as something shocking or abnormal.
Ultimately, if we are committed to sex being normal then should we really distinguish between the shock of being punched and the shock of being groped? I think the conclusion has to be "no". In general, if sex is a normal act, sexual violation must also be viewed as to some extent normal. (This not to say people should do it). The overwhelming majority of sexual offenses are committed by teenage boys. Doesn't this suggest that sex is something we learn to control over time, and so we should try to be more understanding of those who haven't mastered their sexuality, just as we don't get shocked when an infant wets their bed?
We need to stop treating sexual trauma as seriously, because if sex is normal, we have to expect that mistakes will be made in relation to it.

I think it's a good start. I'd say that you can probably even go harder about the cause of sexual trauma. A lot of survivors straight up say that a lot of their hurt is caused by shame, the court process, not being believed and other kinds of secondary harm more than the sexual acts themselves.

I think one thing about sexual penetration is the sense of violation of an internal space. That is something that makes a violent sexual assault more traumatic than a violent physical assault. But talking about groping, I think the acts should be more comparable. The trauma is socially induced. Sex is "unclean" therefore being groping is being "defiled".

Once you're done with it we could even see about putting on the Mu website as a guest blog. Keep it up.

What causes the trauma is the guilt that said society imposes on the "victims" (in society's view), a relationship that would be so beautiful, the girl feels her intimacy invaded and told to everyone, so she feels "guilty" for what she didn't really do, but society did to her. They corner her against the wall until she "confesses" to something that didn't happen to her. Pointing the finger at the tormentor that society says she is. Society is moralistic, hypocritical. "Sexual trauma" is instituted by society, not by the "victim" she claims to be. So much so that there are countless cases of positive involvement, remembered with affection and love.

I'm all for sex positivity even as a male because IMHO sex is good and shouldn't be taboo.

I will give my two cents on certain points of what you mention. For ease of reading sex positivity is going to be shortened to SP

PorcelainLark wrote: ↑Tue Aug 06, 2024 5:26 am However we hold sexual trauma to be distinctly more extreme than other forms of trauma. Does sex-positivity require us to be less sensitive to sexual trauma?

No, SP would recognize that sexual trauma (rape, sexual assaults, non-consensual photo or video recordings) is highly damaging to the victim and not be less sensitive to it.

PorcelainLark wrote: ↑Tue Aug 06, 2024 5:26 am From the outset this line of thinking would come across as absurd, since trauma is a subjective experience, and if people feel more traumatized by sexual trauma than other kinds of traumas, isn't this a meaningless question to ask? I would say we can't know for certain that this is universal or immutable. It may be that at different points in time, sexual trauma wasn't as intense as it is now. It may be that the intensity of sexual trauma is iatrogenic, for example.

I agree that trauma is a subjective experience and no two people will experience trauma the same way. While not a SA victim myself (some might say how I came about to have my first sexual experience was SA because I was either 9 or 10 and the other guy was 12 or 13 at the time) I have my own trauma not sexual trauma but trauma from a scam which I am working through myself.. Our brains are very complex biological devices and sometimes trauma doesn't come to the surface until years or decades after it happened or in some cases it never comes to the surface.

PorcelainLark wrote: ↑Tue Aug 06, 2024 5:26 am Isn't sexual trauma necessarily more intense because of the nature of sex, because it involves physical intimacy and violation of the will of another? Well, violation of the will isn't exclusive to sexual trauma, and if we say that people shouldn't be judged for the number of people they have slept with (as is implied by sex positivity) then physical intimacy shouldn't be viewed as something shocking or abnormal.

For some people their first experiences with sex is some form of sexual violence which well lets be honest is a awful way to start it since they have not having sex when they are ready or want to have it. Instead of saying I'm ready to begin this sexual journey someone is forcing them into violence to control them.

I agree that no one should be judged by how many people they want to or do not have to have sex with. A person who only has sex with three people is as valid and someone who has slept with three hundred people.

PorcelainLark wrote: ↑Tue Aug 06, 2024 5:26 am Ultimately, if we are committed to sex being normal then should we really distinguish between the shock of being punched and the shock of being groped? I think the conclusion has to be "no". In general, if sex is a normal act, sexual violation must also be viewed as to some extent normal. (This not to say people should do it). The overwhelming majority of sexual offenses are committed by teenage boys. Doesn't this suggest that sex is something we learn to control over time, and so we should try to be more understanding of those who haven't mastered their sexuality, just as we don't get shocked when an infant wets their bed?
We need to stop treating sexual trauma as seriously, because if sex is normal, we have to expect that mistakes will be made in relation to it.

Violence in any form is bad but there is a difference between getting punched in the face or having your genitals touched. Sexual violation is worse because of the vulnerability one has with sex. If a another person just randomly walked up to me and grabbed by genitals I would be bothered with that more than getting punched in the face. I guess because my genitals are not on display for those to see is why I would be bothered more. I'm not sure on that most sexual offenses are committed by teenage boys most I would say are done by adult men (I know two men personally who were charged and went to prison for sex crimes).

Sexual assaults are not sex its force, coercion, and control over another human being. Having bad sex isn't the same as just straight raping someone.

Fragment wrote: ↑Tue Aug 06, 2024 6:55 am I think it's a good start. I'd say that you can probably even go harder about the cause of sexual trauma. A lot of survivors straight up say that a lot of their hurt is caused by shame, the court process, not being believed and other kinds of secondary harm more than the sexual acts themselves.

Thanks, man. I was trying to find the source of an idea mrgirl brought up one time; apparently there's this phenomenon when you act like something is traumatizing that it can make a person traumatized. Like beyond whether the assault or the process afterwards causes trauma, is labeling a person traumatized a self-fulfilling prophecy in certain contexts? I couldn't find the source though.

I think one thing about sexual penetration is the sense of violation of an internal space. That is something that makes a violent sexual assault more traumatic than a violent physical assault.

It also involves a sustained state of being overpowered, so I think you could defend a comparison to a non-sexual act like torture.

But talking about groping, I think the acts should be more comparable. The trauma is socially induced. Sex is "unclean" therefore being groping is being "defiled".

I definitely think there's a strong case for that. Though I'm trying to be careful not to make the argument hinge too much on social construction.

Once you're done with it we could even see about putting on the Mu website as a guest blog. Keep it up.

Thanks, I'll keep you guys posted. I think I might want to soften the tone, find some sources, and generally flesh it out over the next week or two.

Pegasus wrote: ↑Tue Aug 06, 2024 11:45 am What causes the trauma is the guilt that said society imposes on the "victims" (in society's view), a relationship that would be so beautiful, the girl feels her intimacy invaded and told to everyone, so she feels "guilty" for what she didn't really do, but society did to her. They corner her against the wall until she "confesses" to something that didn't happen to her. Pointing the finger at the tormentor that society says she is. Society is moralistic, hypocritical. "Sexual trauma" is instituted by society, not by the "victim" she claims to be. So much so that there are countless cases of positive involvement, remembered with affection and love.

I think it's more fear than guilt. Say you're a child and all the adults around you have solemn faces and start speaking very seriously, of course you're going to get scared. Children learn the appropriate emotional reactions from the adults around them, so if the adults act like they should be scared, then they'll become scared.

ZeroXJoker wrote: ↑Tue Aug 06, 2024 7:04 pm No, SP would recognize that sexual trauma (rape, sexual assaults, non-consensual photo or video recordings) is highly damaging to the victim and not be less sensitive to it.

Sure, at the moment the people who identify as sex positive will oppose this line of thinking, however I think if you take sex positivity to it's logical conclusion, this is necessarily the case.

I agree that trauma is a subjective experience and no two people will experience trauma the same way. While not a SA victim myself (some might say how I came about to have my first sexual experience was SA because I was either 9 or 10 and the other guy was 12 or 13 at the time) I have my own trauma not sexual trauma but trauma from a scam which I am working through myself.. Our brains are very complex biological devices and sometimes trauma doesn't come to the surface until years or decades after it happened or in some cases it never comes to the surface.

I understand trauma, I've had plenty of it myself. In my experience, the key to dealing with it is to put it into perspective; if you spend all your time dwelling on how overwhelming it is, it makes it worse (exposure therapy is healthy). If that's true of non-sexual trauma, it should be true of sexual trauma.I think there's a disconnect between what's seen as morally acceptable/what's in bad taste from a social context compared to what's healthy from a therapeutic perspective.

Violence in any form is bad but there is a difference between getting punched in the face or having your genitals touched. Sexual violation is worse because of the vulnerability one has with sex. If a another person just randomly walked up to me and grabbed by genitals I would be bothered with that more than getting punched in the face. I guess because my genitals are not on display for those to see is why I would be bothered more.

For comparison, what if someone jabbed you with a needle, or punched you in the stomach, or grabbed you by the neck? Also, would you feel differently about your genitals being grabbed if you were naked (e.g. in a communal shower)?
However, these question are beside the point. The point is about "should" we react differently not "would" we react differently.

I'm not sure on that most sexual offenses are committed by teenage boys most I would say are done by adult men (I know two men personally who were charged and went to prison for sex crimes).

I misspoke. In terms of age demographics, sex offenders peak at age 13.
The age distribution for sexual offenders is markedly bimodal, however, with the largest peak at age 13, a dip in the early twenties, and a second peak in the mid to late thirties (Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics, 1999). The reason for the bimodal distribution is unknown but it does suggest that there may be a qualitative difference between adolescent and adult sexual offenders. The peak at age 13 may be attributed to generally antisocial, aggressive youth becoming sexually active.
https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrc ... ex-en.aspx

PorcelainLark wrote: ↑Wed Aug 07, 2024 3:13 am Thanks, man. I was trying to find the source of an idea mrgirl brought up one time; apparently there's this phenomenon when you act like something is traumatizing that it can make a person traumatized. Like beyond whether the assault or the process afterwards causes trauma, is labeling a person traumatized a self-fulfilling prophecy in certain contexts? I couldn't find the source though.

https://wiki.yesmap.net/wiki/Research:_Secondary_Harm

Here's a lot of the research on secondary harm that newgon has compiled. I think you're trying to make a point that isn't limited to adult-minor sex, though, so you may try to find research outside of this list.

The biggest question, and I think it's an open question is whether or not sexual assault is simply "sex multiplied by assault" or if it has its own unique trauma that doesn't exist in either sex or assault individually.

PorcelainLark wrote: ↑Wed Aug 07, 2024 3:13 am For comparison, what if someone jabbed you with a needle, or punched you in the stomach, or grabbed you by the neck? Also, would you feel differently about your genitals being grabbed if you were naked (e.g. in a communal shower)?
However, these question are beside the point. The point is about "should" we react differently not "would" we react differently.

Should we react differently? I guess that depends on the person. To me its a violation of bodily autonomy regardless but going after my junk is more personal I guess.

ZeroXJoker wrote: ↑Wed Aug 07, 2024 1:22 pm Should we react differently? I guess that depends on the person. To me its a violation of bodily autonomy regardless but going after my junk is more personal I guess.

The question remains, though, is that reaction something innate to sexual abuse? Or is it socially conditioned? Would you have that, more extreme reaction in a sex positive society?

Sex positivity is obviously opposed to rape or assault. That's not in question. What is in question is whether or not sexual trauma is made worse because of the feelings of guilt, shame and dirtiness that we associate with sex in our sex-negative society.

Would you feel "going after my junk is more personal" if society had a more open attitude towards sex, human bodies and nudity?

"Sex positivity is obviously opposed to rape or assault. That's not in question. What is in question is whether or not sexual trauma is made worse because of the feelings of guilt, shame and dirtiness that we associate with sex in our sex-negative society"


I think so, it gets worse the moment society imposes labels of guilt, shame and disgust on children. I think that if this wasn't the case, if the child was treated with understanding and it was explained to them. They wouldn't feel this way. If they were allowed to act of their own free will, in a natural way, they would see their sexuality and their understanding of sex naturally.

Fragment wrote: ↑Wed Aug 07, 2024 1:18 pm
https://wiki.yesmap.net/wiki/Research:_Secondary_Harm

Here's a lot of the research on secondary harm that newgon has compiled. I think you're trying to make a point that isn't limited to adult-minor sex, though, so you may try to find research outside of this list.

Thanks. Yeah, the idea is re-evaluate the conditions that cause people to react the way that they currently do. I don't think of AMSC as necessarily traumatic, but the possibility of sexual trauma certainly contributes to how people react. There are other similar questions like for example the ambivalence towards sex work: many liberal feminists will say we should accept women who make that choice, however, if there's nothing wrong with sex work, should we really pity girls that want to be strippers and be encouraging them towards a more respectable career?
I think the difficulty is that there are multiple sufficient causes why there's a taboo on pedophilia. There's this concept called "overdetermination" (Overdetermination occurs when a single-observed effect is determined by multiple causes, any one of which alone would be conceivably sufficient to account for ("determine") the effect) which I think is the reason why it's hard to point to one single thing you could change to encourage MAP acceptance.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overdetermination
Basically, I think there needs to be a careful consideration of how MAP issues relate to outside politics. At the moment I think American MAPs should be focused on the First and Fourteenth Ammendments (i.e. defending freedom of speech and opposing discrimination at the same time), so hypothetically "bleeding heart libertarians" should be on our side. Of course we can't base all our politics on being MAPs, however it's helpful to identify who could be on our side, but I digress.

The biggest question, and I think it's an open question is whether or not sexual assault is simply "sex multiplied by assault" or if it has its own unique trauma that doesn't exist in either sex or assault individually.

Exactly.

Pegasus wrote: ↑Wed Aug 07, 2024 4:39 pm I think so, it gets worse the moment society imposes labels of guilt, shame and disgust on children. I think that if this wasn't the case, if the child was treated with understanding and it was explained to them. They wouldn't feel this way. If they were allowed to act of their own free will, in a natural way, they would see their sexuality and their understanding of sex naturally.

I know it's only one example, but I think this fits the idea:
Clarissa Dickson Wright: "My mother made no fuss to me so I suffered no trauma."
https://fstube.net/w/4Rt53ZmJHu8bR5PnVXoss4