As part of my research for an upcoming blog post, I’d like to talk to (C)SA survivors who don’t conform to society’s standards of what a survivor should be. I’m particularly interested in hearing from survivors who have been denied access to support, harassed or attacked online, or silenced in conversations about prevention as a result.
This includes survivors who:
didn’t report their abuse (especially to protect their abuser)
are sex workers
have taboo coping strategies (such as lolicon/shotacon)
have taboo kinks, fetishes, or paraphilias (especially if trauma-related)
got aroused during or “consented” to their abuse
went on to abuse others or view CSAM
oppose “anti-abuse” policies and legislation (EARNIT, FOSTA, KOSA, etc.)
fit the description above in any other way or consider themselves a bad survivor
If any of these sound like they describe you (even partially) and you’re open to talking about your experiences, please DM me, email [email protected], or reach out using the contact info on my website. Nothing you tell me will be published without your permission.
Would it kill you guys to at least all use the same contact method? Had to make a friggin spreadsheet because people reached out on 5 separate platforms lol. (This is a joke, reach out however you’re most comfortable doing so)
when used in that context, it makes sense. there’s no shortage of people who were victims themselves who benefit from the therapeutic use of fantasy and fictional outlets.
I don’t doubt that they’re taboo relative to other more conventional interests, but I’ve been doing some of my own research into it and…well… if numbers on booru sites and traffic analytics data are anything to do by when grading interest, loli tends to get more clicks on hentai sites than traditional ‘gay’ porn on some porn sites.
The case that I linked in the other thread was actually about a CSA survivor trying to cope via fictional pornography depicting incestuous sexual activities between adults and children. He was convicted for possession of child pornography in front of a court and made to pay a fine – and he got lucky, a few months later he would have faced a mandatory minimum sentence of one year in jail.
Sure, that was Germany and not the US, but I think it highlights how quickly CSA survivors who don’t conform to a very specific image quickly lose any kind of sympathy and even get stigmatized by the very same people claiming to protect and help them.
Anyone who supports this or favors this type of treatment should be disqualified from being regarded as ‘reasonable’. I can understand wanting to be cautious about things, but people need to realize that exposure and engagement with fictional/fantasy outlets DOES NOT INCREASE RISK of subsequent abuses, even in those predisposed. There is NO EVIDENCE supporting a causal or exacerbatory effect, and any suggestions supporting the contrary are inconclusive.
Dr. William Thompson’s report on the matter is probably the most valid take on the issue, and we need scientists to step forward and correct the record and reign in the zealous instincts of government officials.
Call me crazy, but by acting this way, the Germans are literally repeating history. The Nazis took drastic measures to address “harmful information” because they genuinely believed that what they viewed as immoral/degenerate was damaging society, that their view of society was what was ultimately for the best.
Even the late (and controversial) John Paul Fedoroff MD agreed that such content wouldn’t increase risk of subsequent abuses by observing clear differences with regard to risk assessment in cross-over risk.
Just like with child sex dolls, policymakers should do right to wait until a scientific consensus can be reached before taking drastic steps which will cause undeniable amounts of harm to both people and society, especially when the harms are alleged and not clearly evident.
The rule of law is a mindless and blunt tool. Lady Justice may wield a sword and a scale, but she’s still blind. That visual metaphor has always been intended to imply that “Justice does not discriminate”, to appeal to the idealistic purity of the fairness of the rule of law, but to others, it is interpreted as a warning to policymakers and the electorate in charge of appointing those who write their governing laws.
There are restrictions on DMs for new members. If you’re looking to contact me for the project described in this thread, you can use one of the other contact options, or I can bypass the restrictions for you if necessary. I’m on my way to bed, so if you click around the forum a bit in the meantime you should be able to get unrestricted fairly quickly
I hope it’s okay to talk a bit about how I feel about the ‘criteria’ (for lack of a better word; I know you clearly specified that people can reach out if any of them fit even partially and made sure to have a bullet point for people who might fit in other ways you haven’t mentioned, so I’m certainly not accusing you of not being inclusive enough! Just airing some thoughts ^^;)
I happen to have experienced CSA while also being someone who happens to view fictional depictions of sexual abuse (including CSA), but I’m not sure if it’s a kink, fetish, paraphilia OR coping strategy. I wouldn’t describe the experience as ‘pleasureable’ or ‘fun’ (like people with kinks, fetishes or paraphilias usually describe it as), but I’m also not doing it to ‘take (back) power/control’ (like people who are using it as a coping strategy usually describe it as)
I haven’t experienced any of the above myself, but seeing it happen to other people who are visibly ‘bad survivors’ does kind of mess me up in terms of how I look at myself
In particular, I feel icky disclosing my status as a survivor in conversations about abuse, not because I don’t want people knowing I’m a survivor, but because I can’t help but feel like I’m ‘playing the survivor card’; that I’m ‘manipulating’ or ‘guilt tripping’ people into agreeing with me or feeling bad about disagreeing with me. Or that I’m leveraging my survivor status to excuse terrible things. Especially since people don’t usually ask, and I’m like ‘why do I have the urge to tell people I’m a survivor when no-one asked? My argument should be just as valid whether I’m a survivor or not. Clearly I’m looking for attention or trying to leverage my survivor status as a rhetorical weapon’ :'D
(This doesn’t even have to involve an external conversation tbh; sometimes I get internal monologues that go something like ‘there’s nothing wrong with X; it harms no-one and people should put aside their disgust and stop being so judgmental’ ‘but what if you’re wrong though, and it does hurt people, and you just don’t see why?’ ‘yeah I could be wrong but so could anyone; I’m a survivor so I at least know better than most people’ ‘you’re playing the survivor card’)
But yeah, I’m open to being interviewed (if my lack of personal experience with (being denied access to support, harassed or attacked online, or silenced in conversations about prevention) still makes me worth interviewing); I just had the urge to ‘prove myself’ in a public comment first for some reason ^^;