Sea Org = Pedophile Platoon?

[AnonKat]

No it isn't

Sado Machochism is a Freudian term. I can also prove that this beast is a figment of Freud's imagination.

Etymology
Portrait of Marquis de Sade by Charles-Amédée-Philippe van Loo (1761).
Statue of Leopold von Sacher-Masoch in front of his birthplace in Lviv, Ukraine.

The development of modern psychiatric theories of sadomasochism, and the co-opting of theoretical scientific classification into common usage of the term "Sadomasochism", are complicated by the diversity of intent in application. The two words incorporated into this compound, "Sadism" and "Masochism", were first selected as professional scientific terminology, identifying human behavioral phenomena and intended for the classification of distinct psychological illnesses and/or malicious social and sexual orientations. The terms were originally derived from the names of two authors, Marquis de Sade and Leopold von Sacher-Masoch respectively, based on their popular writings.

The German psychiatrist Richard von Krafft-Ebing introduced the terms "Sadism" and "Masochism" into institutional medical terminology in his work Neue Forschungen auf dem Gebiet der Psychopathia sexualis ("New research in the area of Psychopathology of Sex") in 1890.[3]

 

[AnonKat]

Are you a Anon troll ?

Sado Machochism is a Freudian term. I can also prove that this beast is a figment of Freud's imagination.

 

[guanoloco]

You found several articles that support your point of view. But, as I stated in one of my posts on this topic, there is no consensus in scientific community on this matter. Otherwise, there would have been no psychologists testifying for the defense. As a juror, you must make a determinantion which side is right. You base your determination on your own experience if you have one, and on your own logical analysis.

It's not so much that I found several articles supporting my point of view...it's that I searched multiple phrases suggesting that males don't suffer trauma as opposed to females.

In short, I searched your point of view and all that comes up is material refuting it.

I surmised, prior to, thinking it would be a far fetch to find any professional theorizing some gender-based ideology if nothing more than the current "political correct" viewpoint that I "think" is extant. I can't see anyone putting forth a gender-biased theory without ample and substantial research data to support it just for this reason. Could you imagine the backlash?

Instead, all that was readily available was refuting the premise.

Gawd! I am wasting my time!

 

[guanoloco]

What this discussion has to do with alcoholics? You veered off the topic.
I can give you an example of how incorrect psychological analysis could happen. In 1980s a large group of psychologists jumped to conclusion that almost all their patients were sexually abused by their parents in childhood. This theory spread like a wild fire, and soon thousands of people were “recalling” the stories of sexual abuse in the hands of their parents (probably, you heard about this epidemics of parental sexual abuse). The theory was completely idiotic, but it broke up a large number of families. Then in 1990s this madness came to an end when another group of psychologists showed how false memories could be implanted. I could give you more examples of idiotic and harmful theories that later were discarded.
All these theories are based on the false premise of suppressed memories of painful events. I can easily prove that this premise is incorrect.
The same applies to the claims of some psychologists that male children who had sexual relation with older women suppressed their memories of these encounters only to discover later that their lives became screwed up because of that. (your friend is an exception because his situation is different: I do not think that he was diagnosed with the suppressed memory syndrome because of his unique situation)
When you say I am wrong, you talk in generalities without providing any information about the psychological procedures that led to conclusion of harmful effects of sex relations between teenage men and older women. As the result, your position is purely emotional and you’re avoiding a scientific discussion. If you want to put your argument on scientific foundation, you must provide the data on psychological methods involved. I might be wrong after all -- the conclusions you’re referring to may not be based on the suppressed memory syndrome. But your failure to provide this data makes your position very weak.

I never mentioned repressed/suppressed memories - you just did.

I was responding to "I do not think that people can realize later in their lives that a damage had occurred to them during their childhood years -- this makes no logical scence to me. Either they realize right away that they were damaged or there was no damage at all."

I then mentioned that people suffering from an addictive disease can see many years later the damage that occurred while not seeing it during their user phase or at least not willing to see it. I thought that might occur with an adolescent "in love".

I then mentioned Stockholm Syndrome, yadda, yadda, yadda.

Both in regards to an adolescent "in love".

And, specifically regarding your statements we can remove "post" from PTSD -

Clinical findings indicate that a failure to provide adequate treatment to children after they suffer a traumatic experience, depending on their vulnerability and the severity of the trauma, will ultimately lead to PTSD symptoms in adulthood.[15]

...and...

Effects of sexual assault on children
Main article: Child sexual abuse

Rape and other forms of sexual assault on a child can result in both short-term and long-term harm, including psychopathology in later life. Psychological, emotional, physical, and social effects include depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety, eating disorders, poor self-esteem, dissociative and anxiety disorders; general psychological distress and disorders such as somatization, neurosis, chronic pain, sexualized behavior, school/learning problems; and behavior problems including substance abuse, destructive behavior, criminality in adulthood and suicide.

The risk of lasting psychological harm is greater if the perpetrator of the sexual assault on the child is a relative (i.e., incest), or if threats or force are used. Incestual rape has been shown to be one of the most extreme forms of childhood trauma, a trauma that often does serious and long-term psychological damage, especially in the case of parental incest.

From here.

And finally...

Underground stage

Victims attempt to return to their lives as if nothing happened.
May block thoughts of the assault from their minds and may not want to talk about the incident or any of the related issues. (They don't want to think about it).
Victims may have difficulty in concentrating and some depression.
Dissociation and trying to get back to their lives before the assault.
The underground stage may last for years and the victim seems as though that they are "over it", despite the fact the emotional issues are not resolved.

From here.

However, I've now seen the error of my ways and you are 100% correct and right...please correct the above references in wikipedie before it erroneously biases anyone else's understanding.

It is absolutely impossible for adolescent/pre-adolescent males to be affected as bad as adolescent/pre-adolescent females regarding statutory rape. I was in error and I acquiesce.

 

[Terril park]

Are you a Anon troll ?

Not worth communicating with IMO.

 

[AnonKat]

Not worth communicating with IMO.

My Bad ?

 

[guanoloco]

My Bad ?

YEAH, AnonKat, your bad!

My bad and Terril's bad, too!

Gumby, dammit!

 

[Ulduz]

It's not so much that I found several articles supporting my point of view...it's that I searched multiple phrases suggesting that males don't suffer trauma as opposed to females.

In short, I searched your point of view and all that comes up is material refuting it.

I surmised, prior to, thinking it would be a far fetch to find any professional theorizing some gender-based ideology if nothing more than the current "political correct" viewpoint that I "think" is extant. I can't see anyone putting forth a gender-biased theory without ample and substantial research data to support it just for this reason. Could you imagine the backlash?

Instead, all that was readily available was refuting the premise.

Gawd! I am wasting my time!

I am wasting my time as well. Obviously, you are avoiding a scientific discussion and continue taliking in generalities. The "researches" whom I used as an example of idiotic pseudo-scientists also produced volumes of material supporting their view, and they continued to dominate the scene until the middle of 1990s. The quantity of material does not guarantee that its quality is good. I asked you a simple question -- what methods were used to support you assertion? -- and you're unable to answer it. To me it shows that you are not ready for a scientific discussion. I wonder what your educational level is. I have BS in Physics and MS in Mechanical Engineering. Anyway, I think we should end this useless discussion and stop wasting each other's time.

 

[Ulduz]

No it isn't




Etymology
Portrait of Marquis de Sade by Charles-Amédée-Philippe van Loo (1761).
Statue of Leopold von Sacher-Masoch in front of his birthplace in Lviv, Ukraine.

The development of modern psychiatric theories of sadomasochism, and the co-opting of theoretical scientific classification into common usage of the term "Sadomasochism", are complicated by the diversity of intent in application. The two words incorporated into this compound, "Sadism" and "Masochism", were first selected as professional scientific terminology, identifying human behavioral phenomena and intended for the classification of distinct psychological illnesses and/or malicious social and sexual orientations. The terms were originally derived from the names of two authors, Marquis de Sade and Leopold von Sacher-Masoch respectively, based on their popular writings.

The German psychiatrist Richard von Krafft-Ebing introduced the terms "Sadism" and "Masochism" into institutional medical terminology in his work Neue Forschungen auf dem Gebiet der Psychopathia sexualis ("New research in the area of Psychopathology of Sex") in 1890.[3]

I does not matter who introduced this term. The fact is that Freud used it in his works. It is quite possible that originally the term had a meaning different from what it designates now. But currently it has the meaning that Freud assigned to it. I suggest you read the book The Interpretation of Dreams by Freud.

 

[guanoloco]

Obviously.

 

[Ulduz]

Are you a Anon troll ?

"Mental weakness and extreme stupidity always results in insults"
Monty Python.

 

[Ulduz]

I never mentioned repressed/suppressed memories - you just did.

I was responding to "I do not think that people can realize later in their lives that a damage had occurred to them during their childhood years -- this makes no logical scence to me. Either they realize right away that they were damaged or there was no damage at all."

I then mentioned that people suffering from an addictive disease can see many years later the damage that occurred while not seeing it during their user phase or at least not willing to see it. I thought that might occur with an adolescent "in love".

I then mentioned Stockholm Syndrome, yadda, yadda, yadda.

Both in regards to an adolescent "in love".

And, specifically regarding your statements we can remove "post" from PTSD -



...and...



From here.

And finally...



From here.

However, I've now seen the error of my ways and you are 100% correct and right...please correct the above references in wikipedie before it erroneously biases anyone else's understanding.

It is absolutely impossible for adolescent/pre-adolescent males to be affected as bad as adolescent/pre-adolescent females regarding statutory rape. I was in error and I acquiesce.

I just noticed this post. The articles it refers to are of zero scientific value because they do not show how the authors arrived to their conclusions. In other words, there is no statistical data on which they are based and, equally important, there is no statistcal analysis of it.
You have to do better than finding low-value Wikipedia articles. For your information, real scientists have no respect for Wikipedia data. This shows once more that you are not ready for a scientific discussion.

 

[guanoloco]

I just noticed this post. The articles it refers to are of zero scientific value because they do not show how the authors arrived to their conclusions. In other words, there is no statistical data on which they are based and, equally important, there is no statistcal analysis of it.
You have to do better than finding low-value Wikipedia articles. For your information, real scientists have no respect for Wikipedia data. This shows once more that you are not ready for a scientific discussion.

Good, now that that's settled you can correct wikipedia.

Thanks again for sharing your specific scientific value based conclusions with statistical data and statistical analysis to my repeated posts of generalities.

 

[Ulduz]

Good, now that that's settled you can correct wikipedia.

Thanks again for sharing your specific scientific value based conclusions with statistical data and statistical analysis to my repeated posts of generalities.

Do I detect bitterness mixed with irony in your response? I saw your other posts on different threats, they are quite good; I must admit it, although it seems to me you're an atheist, and I am a Buddhist. But one cannot be a jack of all trades, which also applies to me. In cases like this one I always say at the end of discussion -- let the audience decide who presented the strongest argument. I'm sure this discussion attracted a lot of attention.

 

[jenni with an eye]

I'm not an expert in this field,

These laws carry equal punishment to the male and female offenders. I read several articles by psychologists who argue that female offenders should undergo less severe punishment than their male counterparts, and I fully agree with them.

I did not suffer any trauma as the result of my sex encounter; in fact, I bragged about it to my friends.

My moral code was always low, considering the fact that I had group sex with two women, and other indiscretions.

This damage is not determined by you and I,

Yep, the audience is deciding

 

[jenni with an eye]

Sorry, forgot to add this:
The case of your friend is very rare and should not be judged by the standards that I advocate.

Now you are twisting my words. I did not say that it is OK for a grown woman to have sex with a boy. My point was that the damage to the boy is the same in the case of 40-year-old as in the case of 16-year old. You have to respond to what I say, not to what you think I IMPLIED when I said it -- this is one of the basic rules used in the court system.
During the trial the prosecution presents the experts (psychologists) who do their best to prove that the boy suffered serious psychological damage. Similarly, the defense lawyers bring their experts to the court to show that no significant damage was done to the boy. Apparently, there is no consensus in the scientific community about extent of the damage. You, as a juror, must decide which team of experts is right. In some cases the jurors go for a lesser charge, in some -- for more serious charge. I would also side with the experts who represent the defense team. But the woman is always found guilty of something, not a single juror, including myself, would opt for non-guilty charge.
The jury does not do the sentencing, but the judge does. The sentencing guideline is that a female perpetrator should receive the same jail term as a ,male perpetrator, and this is something I strongly disagree with.
PS. I know the US justice system quite well -- I spent 47 days in jail before I was found not guilty of the charge of assault with deadly weapon (I was acting in self-defense)

But, if by some stroke of fate I have had sexual encounter with a 40-uear old, I know that I would be bragging about it at that age.

I asked this question about your painful experiences because I do not think that people can realize later in their lives that a damage had occurred to them during their childhood years -- this makes no logical scence to me

You found several articles that support your point of view. But, as I stated in one of my posts on this topic, there is no consensus in scientific community on this matter.

Still deciding...

 

[jenni with an eye]

All these theories are based on the false premise of suppressed memories of painful events. I can easily prove that this premise is incorrect.
...I might be wrong after all -- the conclusions you’re referring to may not be based on the suppressed memory syndrome. But your failure to provide this data makes your position very weak.

I read part of the article. I have a huge problem with it -- it is based on the works of Freud. I can easily prove that Freudian psychoanalysis is wrong to the point that it is completely unworkable. But that would be a different topic. I do not know if you want to get into it.

Sado Machochism is a Freudian term. I can also prove that this beast is a figment of Freud's imagination.

I am wasting my time as well. Obviously, you are avoiding a scientific discussion and continue taliking in generalities. I have BS in Physics and MS in Mechanical Engineering. Anyway, I think we should end this useless discussion and stop wasting each other's time.

"Mental weakness and extreme stupidity always results in insults"
Monty Python.

Still deciding...

 

[jenni with an eye]

I just noticed this post.
You have to do better than finding low-value Wikipedia articles. For your information, real scientists have no respect for Wikipedia data. This shows once more that you are not ready for a scientific discussion.

Do I detect bitterness mixed with irony in your response? I saw your other posts on different threats, they are quite good; I must admit it, although it seems to me you're an atheist, and I am a Buddhist. But one cannot be a jack of all trades, which also applies to me. In cases like this one I always say at the end of discussion -- let the audience decide who presented the strongest argument. I'm sure this discussion attracted a lot of attention.

Yep, it's decided...

 

[lotus]

 

[clamicide]

Oh man. I swear#!$#@%. Some days this board drives me up a tree. I have known folks of BOTH sexes that had underage sex that would be illegal, and they recall it fondly, and I don't know if they are in denial or what...but, these are folks who lead normal lives now. I don't know the 'predators', and I'm not a psychologist, so I don't know if THEY were screwed up.

This is ALL imnsho a diversion from the topic of Sea Org protecting pedophiles. It has happened. There was a gal who actually used to post on this board who I met who told me of what happened to her at PAC when she was SO. I hope to hell she comes forward to the authorities.

That said, going to the authorities does not necessarily bring justice. In my rape support group, it turned out that we all happened to love the show Law & Order SVU--but, we also knew it was a fucking fantasy. We were completely excited beyond belief when 'Olivia' started showing signs of PTSD. I've read a bit about Mariska Hargitay, and it sounds like she pushed for that to be part of the story line and seems like she actually might care (not just 'Hollywood care') about folks who are raped or sexually abused. And I can't decide whether she or Christopher Meloni is the hotter of the two...but, I digress.. Seriously, most of the folks in my group had been raped more than once. There was ONE conviction of a rapist in the whole group experience...and that guy was pretty much caught almost in the act. I'm not trying to be a downer, but I look at this thing where it can all come out happy shiny rainbows so easily, and I know better.

More folks need to come forward. But, they need to know, it might not bring immediate justice. The authorities don't necessarily behave like we see on TV. After being on this board and reading this stuff, I'm going to go in person to a police station to try, once again, to give the details of my last rape. I know where this psycho lives...I don't think I was the first person he raped, and I doubt I was the last. When I've tried to get it on the record before in case someone else comes forward so there was corroboration of his MO...I was told...."uh...I can take down the info, but...we're not going to do anything with it, so do you really want to bother?". This happened more than once.

So, I've also got knowledge of crap that went on when I was in the cult, but my reports meant nothing. Yep, dismissed. And seeing that reports of stuff that I experienced first-hand were also dismissed...$#@$#.

Any shit that I knew of that shows up, I hope to hell it makes it onto the board. I'll testify in a heart-beat. It totally happened...it's part of the unwritten code of Scientology. Hell, I even knew of an OT VII who had a hard time not getting a major erection whenever he saw a tiny child... and folks just said his OT III was unflat. One creepy dude. I don't know if he actually engaged in abuse, but THAT is just part of the mindset of those fully indoctrinated in the cult--something is unflat, or unhandled, or FPRD case. It's fucked up folks. And those who were raped/molested/whatever need to speak up. Yet, I understand why they'd be afraid to. This Eastgate thing is just the tip of the slimy iceberg. Kudos to the gal who is bringing the suit. I hope to hell it opens up the giant can of worms that is sitting there.

So, can we dump the fucking debate and look at the real problem? The cult protects pedophiles and rapists. They think they have 'the answer', and when someone does something insane, they need to protect the living hell out of themselves, because it makes them look like they DON'T have the answer--and they just need to 'handle'. Wow, they don't have the answer. Sucks for everybody.