hobbitsaarebas:

kipplekipple:

thatdiabolicalfeminist:

stimmyabby:

when you go from a bad situation into a better one you may collapse exhausted and unsure what to do and full of grief, you may need time to regain the ability to do things as yourself or motivated by anything other than terror, you may need time to process or mourn or fall apart in ways you could not before,

and people may use this as proof that the old situation was better for you, proof that you need to go back, and it is not proof that it was better for you or proof that you need to go back

!!!

It’s so incredibly common to “fall apart” when you’re finally safe. You no longer need to stay so tightly coiled in on yourself, you can finally leave survival mode and process your trauma. You’re not holding yourself up by sheer terror anymore and suddenly the damage that terror has done to you becomes immediate and obvious. 

This is so important. Don’t go back. Things are already getting better, even if it doesn’t feel that way.

This is a documented phenomenon with abuse in particular. I’ve had a number of people ask me why they’re falling apart now after they’ve moved into a safer home, or they’re in a less dangerous area, or they’ve left an exploitative job, or they’re in a healthy relationship for the first time. Generally, it’s because they made that positive change. 

When we’re still in the midst of crisis, we’re often too overloaded and physically/emotionally unsafe to really feel or process anything. So for most of us, everything gets pushed down/repressed/dissociated until later, when we’re safe and supported. The threshold of safety at which processing begins to occur varies from person to person. And the mental calculations used to determine “safety” usually happen on an unconscious level. Very few of us have the conscious thought “I’m safe now, so I can process what happened to me.” Instead, the subconscious realizes some level of safety has been achieved, and so it just dumps a load of suppressed stuff. 

Sometimes, it’s contrast to past experiences that makes us realize something was traumatic at all. In such cases, it’s not that we’ve reached a level of safety and can thus begin to process, it’s that we finally have a basis for comparison to know that what went before was unacceptable. 

love-god-herself:

problackgirl:

there’s such a complete lack of compassion when people talk about girls in abusive relationships and it’s like unless you’ve been manipulated and had your self esteem been ruined to pieces by a boy who consistently gaslights you and makes you feel like you’re wrong all the time then please watch ya tone all right, is not something that’s easy to see until you get out and when you’re being abused, you’re not in the optimum state of mind to realise that you need to get out. It’s not easy at all and I don’t think messages like “girls allow themselves to be treated badly by guys” help, bcs no girl is *allowing* themselves to be abused

They’ve been broken down to the point where they don’t see his behaviour as abuse, they see it as love and they romanticise everything he does bcs they don’t know any better and if they do know better, they’re too fucking scared to leave so maybe just relax with the self righteous tone when talking about girls staying in shitty relationships yah

Honestly, people seem much more concerned with patronizingly, accusingly questioning why girls stay(ed) in abusive relationships than they do with those girls’ trauma or bringing abusers to justice. Different version of the same “you deserve this” bullshit those girls are already getting from their abusers. Really fucking helpful.

the-courage-to-heal:

“Most people, when you confront them about something they are doing wrong, get defensive and deny it at first. But later, when they have had some time to cool down, they will come back and admit you were right. Abusers do not do this. They use the passage of time to find additional arguments about why they are right.”

Lundy Bancroft

myceliorum:

rosa-buachaille:

the-transfeminine-mystique:

the-transfeminine-mystique:

I’ve seen these posts saying, in the words of one of them, “If your job requires you to go against your religious beliefs then perhaps it is time to change careers?” in reference to healthcare workers and government employees who want to deny services to lgbt ppl or others whom they condemn, and i just feel like those posts don’t attempt to understand internal logics at all

like, fundamentalist christian doctors don’t deny trans people medical care because they believe that somebody should provide the care but they just don’t want to be the one to do it. they deny the care because they don’t believe the person should receive care. Their refusal to provide care isn’t just “oops you’re in the wrong field,” as if they were a person with a peanut allergy working in a peanut factory. It is an intentional and calculated part of why they are in the field in the first place — to extend religious control and condemnation to the medical realm.

the pediatrician who spent an entire consultation telling one of my friends at 16 or 17 that he would go to hell if he kept choosing to be gay wasn’t just “not cut out for the job,” he was specifically in that job in order to do that particular thing. Kim Davis didn’t deny the gay couple a marriage license because she couldn’t personally do it, she denied them a marriage license because she thought that people like them should not get marriage licenses and that a clerk should deny them and by god she was going to be that clerk

Saying “if you can’t provide services then why are you in that job!!!” to fundamentalist christians almost always misses the point — that they are in that job specifically so they can selectively deny service

So many people have reblogged this with comments about how this isn’t a thing and how nobody goes into a field specifically to exclude people, and that people pick jobs based on what they like doing, just like most people select a career. And I see where they are coming from in some ways. My wording can be read as meaning that Kim Davis’s primary motivation for becoming a county clerk was specifically to deny gay couples marriage licenses, which isn’t exactly what I mean.

What I mean is that, for a specific subset of fundamentalist Christians, they will say “we need more Christian doctors” or “we need more Christians in government,” and what they mean (and what everybody in the community hears, particularly kids and young adults thinking towards careers) is “we need people in those positions who will discharge their duties according to a fundamentalist Christian ethic, and refuse to allow _______ to happen on their watch.” That “_______” can be filled with anything from abortion to trans acceptance to issuance of marriage licenses to gay people. Their epistemic framework is specifically fundamentalist Christian and not “professional,” and they should be recognized as such, not just people whose professional ethics are superseded in one or two places by their personal religious practice.

I’m guessing this also applies to doctors who are straight-up disablist. 

I know there’s a problem with people going into medicine because it’s prestigious and they want the admiration, rather than having any concern for patients.  That’s fairly well-acknowledged, culturally, though it could still be better. 

But I wonder how many are in medicine because they hate not just sickness – which would be on shaky ground – but sick/disabled people. 

Like they’re subliminating their urge to “clean up the town” into a very socially-accepted course of action. 

And if they can’t fix you immediately – ie. make the problem not be a problem now – they’ll take the Other Route, of removing care so that you die as soon as possible.

All subconsciously, for most of them, but it would explain their actions very well.

Yeah I suspect it’s complicated.  Meaning, sometimes absolutely, sometimes no, sometimes a combination, and sometimes even they probably don’t understand what the hell they’re doing or why.  But there are definitely people who go into fields with positions of power because they want to do harm.  Hell, we already know that there’s serial killers who prey on sick and disabled people by becoming doctors or nurses or LNAs on purpose to gain easier access to us.  (Ever wonder why you never hear of them even though they’re some of the most successful and prolific, and there’s little to no outcry or fame even when they’re caught after doing shit that makes the most infamous serial killers look tame?  …yeah.)  That’s an extreme example, but if that exists (and is as widespread as it is), then every other gradation along the way in terms of malicious intent, both conscious and otherwise, has to exist as well.

rosa-buachaille:

the-transfeminine-mystique:

the-transfeminine-mystique:

I’ve seen these posts saying, in the words of one of them, “If your job requires you to go against your religious beliefs then perhaps it is time to change careers?” in reference to healthcare workers and government employees who want to deny services to lgbt ppl or others whom they condemn, and i just feel like those posts don’t attempt to understand internal logics at all

like, fundamentalist christian doctors don’t deny trans people medical care because they believe that somebody should provide the care but they just don’t want to be the one to do it. they deny the care because they don’t believe the person should receive care. Their refusal to provide care isn’t just “oops you’re in the wrong field,” as if they were a person with a peanut allergy working in a peanut factory. It is an intentional and calculated part of why they are in the field in the first place — to extend religious control and condemnation to the medical realm.

the pediatrician who spent an entire consultation telling one of my friends at 16 or 17 that he would go to hell if he kept choosing to be gay wasn’t just “not cut out for the job,” he was specifically in that job in order to do that particular thing. Kim Davis didn’t deny the gay couple a marriage license because she couldn’t personally do it, she denied them a marriage license because she thought that people like them should not get marriage licenses and that a clerk should deny them and by god she was going to be that clerk

Saying “if you can’t provide services then why are you in that job!!!” to fundamentalist christians almost always misses the point — that they are in that job specifically so they can selectively deny service

So many people have reblogged this with comments about how this isn’t a thing and how nobody goes into a field specifically to exclude people, and that people pick jobs based on what they like doing, just like most people select a career. And I see where they are coming from in some ways. My wording can be read as meaning that Kim Davis’s primary motivation for becoming a county clerk was specifically to deny gay couples marriage licenses, which isn’t exactly what I mean.

What I mean is that, for a specific subset of fundamentalist Christians, they will say “we need more Christian doctors” or “we need more Christians in government,” and what they mean (and what everybody in the community hears, particularly kids and young adults thinking towards careers) is “we need people in those positions who will discharge their duties according to a fundamentalist Christian ethic, and refuse to allow _______ to happen on their watch.” That “_______” can be filled with anything from abortion to trans acceptance to issuance of marriage licenses to gay people. Their epistemic framework is specifically fundamentalist Christian and not “professional,” and they should be recognized as such, not just people whose professional ethics are superseded in one or two places by their personal religious practice.

I’m guessing this also applies to doctors who are straight-up disablist. 

I know there’s a problem with people going into medicine because it’s prestigious and they want the admiration, rather than having any concern for patients.  That’s fairly well-acknowledged, culturally, though it could still be better. 

But I wonder how many are in medicine because they hate not just sickness – which would be on shaky ground – but sick/disabled people. 

Like they’re subliminating their urge to “clean up the town” into a very socially-accepted course of action. 

And if they can’t fix you immediately – ie. make the problem not be a problem now – they’ll take the Other Route, of removing care so that you die as soon as possible.

All subconsciously, for most of them, but it would explain their actions very well.

Resources for Male Victims of Abuse

kiss-my-piss:

How to Recognize Abuse

**Emotional Abuse of Men

**Sexual Assault of Men and Boys

**Men Can Be Victims of Abuse, Too

**Domestic Violence Against Men – Know the Signs

**Information for Male Survivors of Sexual Abuse

**Help for Battered Men

**Battered Men, Battered Husbands

**For Male Survivors of Rape and Sexual Abuse

**Male Survivors of Incest and Sexual Child Abuse

**Help for Men Who Are Being Abused

Help Lines (Phone and Text Chat)

National Domestic Violence Hotline: 1-800-799-7233 (or 1-800-787-3224 for TTY)

National Dating Abuse Hotline: 1-866-331-9474

National Sexual Assault Hotline: 1-800-656-4673

National Suicide Prevention Hotline: 1-800-237-8255

Domestic Abuse Helpline for Men: 1-888-743-5754 (US and Canada)

Hopeline Suicide Prevention Hotline: 1-800-784-2433

National Hotline for Victims of Crimes: 1-855-484-2846

National Human Trafficking Hotline: 1-888-373-7888

Polaris Human Trafficking Text Line: Text “BEFREE” to 233733

**1in6/RAINN Chat for Male Survivors of Sexual Abuse

Support Groups

**1in6 Support Groups

Male Survivor Support Groups

Pandora’s Aquarium – Chat (includes chats specifically for men)

Pandora’s Aquarium – Forums (includes forums specifically for men)

How to Find a Shelter

Domestic Shelters Search (shelter locator with filters to find shelters specifically for male survivors)

SAFE (located in Austin, TX, but states they can help people find resources/shelters in their area)

How to Find a Therapist

**Male Survivor Therapist Directory

Mental Health Services Locator

Resources for and About the Abuse of Kids/Teens

Love is Respect Hotline: 1-866-331-9474 (Hotline for teens)

Darkness to Light Helpline (Sexual Abuse): 1-866-367-5444

Darkness to Light Text Line: Text “LIGHT” to 741741

ChildHelp USA National Child Abuse Hotline: 1-800-422-4453

Children of the Night Hotline (Children in Prostitution): 1-800-551-1300

National Runaway Safeline: 1-800-786-2929

Covenant House Nineline (Homeless Youth): 1-800-999-9999

Stop it Now Hotline: 1-888-773-2362 (for adults concerned about the welfare of a child)

Jennifer Ann’s Group (for teens experiencing dating violence)

Other Resource Lists 

(While I tried to include the most helpful resources I could here (i.e., resources that lend themselves to one-on-one communication, individual reading, etc.), there are plenty of other great resources, including regional resources, listed in these links. Some of the resources are specific to men and others aren’t, but they are all helpful for male survivors.)

**Male Survivor (regional, international, and online resources)

**Husband Battering: Men and Domestic Violence

**Help for Battered Men: Online Resources

**Help for Battered Men: National and International Resources

**Help for Guys: Help for Victims (some resources for men, many general resources)

myceliorum:

thatdiabolicalfeminist:

Kids who sought out sexual/romantic interactions with adults…

  • because they were lonely and needed human interaction/attention
  • or had emotional needs not being met
  • because they thought it was the price of being treated with care
  • or because it was a way to understand/reenact/overwrite/escape previous trauma
  • because they thought it was normal
  • or because they had picked up the message that this was how to be daring and cool and sexy/mature
  • or because they didn’t really understand how it would affect them
  • because they felt like they deserved it
  • or because they thought there wasn’t a big difference and “age is just a number”
  • or because being sexual around adults was the only time people said nice things to them or seemed to like them or notice them
  • or for any other reason

… still did not deserve the abuse they suffered.

Kids who initiate flirtation with adults still don’t deserve abuse.

Adults who aren’t abusers will not take advantage of a kid’s crush or advances. It’s the adult’s responsibility to set clear boundaries and enforce them. It’s an adult’s responsibility to not become sexually or romantically involved with a child. Adults who do are abusers.

Children did not cause those adults to become abusers. Children cannot tempt nonabusers into becoming abusers. Children are never responsible for adults deciding to abuse.

Even if you feel like you made it really easy for them to abuse you, being vulnerable to abuse around a nonabuser doesn’t result in abuse. Your vulnerability wasn’t the cause of the abuse. Their choices were.

It’s not your fault, it was never your fault.

I knew a girl growing up 13 years old already been molested before that who was convinced “dating” 35 year old men showed her “maturity”. SHE WAS GROOMED. THESE WERE RAPISTS. IT WAS NOT HER FAULT. Yet she was put into forced psych treatment for her “poor life choices” and the men raping her didn’t get squat.

thatdiabolicalfeminist:

Kids who sought out sexual/romantic interactions with adults…

  • because they were lonely and needed human interaction/attention
  • or had emotional needs not being met
  • because they thought it was the price of being treated with care
  • or because it was a way to understand/reenact/overwrite/escape previous trauma
  • because they thought it was normal
  • or because they had picked up the message that this was how to be daring and cool and sexy/mature
  • or because they didn’t really understand how it would affect them
  • because they felt like they deserved it
  • or because they thought there wasn’t a big difference and “age is just a number”
  • or because being sexual around adults was the only time people said nice things to them or seemed to like them or notice them
  • or for any other reason

… still did not deserve the abuse they suffered.

Kids who initiate flirtation with adults still don’t deserve abuse.

Adults who aren’t abusers will not take advantage of a kid’s crush or advances. It’s the adult’s responsibility to set clear boundaries and enforce them. It’s an adult’s responsibility to not become sexually or romantically involved with a child. Adults who do are abusers.

Children did not cause those adults to become abusers. Children cannot tempt nonabusers into becoming abusers. Children are never responsible for adults deciding to abuse.

Even if you feel like you made it really easy for them to abuse you, being vulnerable to abuse around a nonabuser doesn’t result in abuse. Your vulnerability wasn’t the cause of the abuse. Their choices were.

It’s not your fault, it was never your fault.