Now that the dust has settled, was it kino?

>>24571080 (OP)
>Pedophiles do no harm
>It's the parents and society that harms the kids
Based Cunny Kino

>>24571098
And based shota kino

>>24571098
>>24571194
You didn't read the book. The book opens with firsthand interviews, such as one with Erin—a composed, successful woman who isn’t even sure if what happened to her “counts” as abuse. This uncertainty is central to Clancy’s thesis: many survivors of childhood sexual abuse don’t experience the abuse as traumatic at the time, particularly when the abuser is someone familiar, loving, or manipulative. Clancy’s research shows that most victims describe their experiences as confusing, uncomfortable, or wrong, but not immediately terrifying or violent. The real trauma often emerges later, once they come to understand what was done to them, which leads to feelings of shame, guilt, self-blame, and long-term psychological distress. This challenges what Clancy calls “the trauma myth”—the widespread belief that abuse is always experienced as violently traumatic in the moment. That myth, she argues, alienates many survivors whose stories don’t match the expected narrative and discourages them from seeking help or validation. Critics have sometimes misread her position as downplaying the harm of abuse, but Clancy clarifies that she’s not minimizing suffering—instead, she’s exposing how cultural assumptions obscure the actual psychological damage caused by betrayal, manipulation, and delayed comprehension. By pushing back against narrow “victim scripts,” Clancy urges a more nuanced and inclusive understanding of abuse, emphasizing that a lack of immediate trauma does not mean a lack of harm. In fact, victims who didn’t resist or feel fear at the time often suffer even more confusion and self-blame later. Her ultimate goal is to foster better support, better therapeutic frameworks, and more honest conversations around how abuse is experienced and remembered.

>>24571331
Damn this is really interesting stuff, the type of theory youd see from 19th 20th centure psychology, not modern day psychology, which tells me that there must be more being said here, because modern psychologists cannot understand anything without le science.

Anyway, ive thought about this before. There was a light phenomenon some years ago, where women would retroactively call maybe unpleasant, or poor hookups rape afterwards. And it made it seem like giving the language for this stuff, was like a self fulfilling prophecy.

But I feel like theres another classic example of this that has nothing to do with sex, where somebody retroactively makes their life worse (or better maybe) with a particular overarching language and perspective

>>24571080 (OP)
>was it kino?
No, it relies on the testimony of individuals who self-identify as victims of abuse, which creates a substantial sampling bias, and can not be generalized to the population. The experiences described in this book may be relevant to a section of the population, however.

>>24571331
I worry that this is all utterly true, and my realisation of what happened has caused me to lose virtually all my attraction to other people, along with my sex drive. I wish I had never insisted on prying. I'm not sure what to do.
Can I even reduce such damning symptoms?

>>24571331
I'm worried that this is all utterly correct. It seems that only after I realised what happened, I lost virtually all my attraction to other people, along with my sex drive. I wish I'd never insisted on prying.

Are my symptoms too damning to be helped? I'm not sure what to do.

>>24571080 (OP)
Kids deserved it.

>>24571344
All heterosexual sex is rape, consent is post-facto for women. It is in Kristeva and Paglia.

>>24571331
thank you chatgpt, that's very insightful

>>24571879
>>24571949
Hmmmmm

>>24571344
>the type of theory youd see from 19th 20th centure psychology, not modern day psychology
You should try getting your understanding of modern psychology from places other than twitter posts and headlines.

>>24571879
The self view is entirely a narrative of perceived events. It's all framing. So, solution is simple. If all your associations with sex are negative, if you think "that's all I'll ever be" then just disprove yourself and create new associations that contradict the previous. Like how a book about ones sordid life can completely upturn itself with just one final chapter where he recovers. Continue exploring new sexual spaces and create new associations, not so you can "force out" the old, but so that your notion of what is normal shifts. Don't focus on extrication, focus on introduction.

>>24573667
I am right. You are wrong. Simple. Move along now.

>>24573688
It would be simple for you, but it is not, however it is simple for me, because you are wrong and I am right. Oh it feels so good to live life in such sure footing.

>>24571080 (OP)
jewish, right?

>>24571331
This is exactly what >>24571098 said. So it's based Cunny-Shota Kino

>>24571331
Thanks pedoGPT

>>24573695
Okay but the difference is you have no remote reference or even appeal to your claim. My claim that psychology is obsessed with science and cannot deviate from such is objectively true. It doesnt matter what "psychology" is like in huddled up backrooms of some shitty academic storeroom. Every subject ultimately defers to language, and language cannot be private. The meaning of psychology is ultimately determined by what is available to understand broadly and publically by a significant number of people that have the capacity or interest to understand it.

In my psychology class in University, we learned more about the abstractions of the mind grounded in physicality, about neurotransmitters, neurons, and the fucking eye, and its makeup before we actually approached amy understanding of behaviour etc. And it was so short lived that I remember remnants of the science more than the psychology that had to do with any human.

Then theres the obsession with teaching proper study procedures and standards. And I dont even know why I am explaining this to a retard. I am simply right. Kill yourself bum

And I didnt even have to get to real world therapy which is as robotic as possible now.

>>24571080 (OP)
>Kids are sometimes too stupid to understand something bad is happening to them so its ok!
You can justify almost any treatment towards children with this logic. Not just children, but the incapacitated and animals as well.

Evil, evil shit. Rape a vegetable? Sure why not. They won't remember it LOL! Carnal pleasure is the most important thing in the world after all. I'm not the problem for cumming in dogs, its le society for making me feel bad about it :(
>>24571098
>>24571194
Both of you are hideously ugly IRL. If you were hot you would be fucking other hot people and you wouldn't have to manipulate children (not a difficult feat, mind you) into sex.
Kill yourselves ASAP. You are not loved nor wanted and you never will be.

>>24571331
You can get stuck in the shock phase of whatever your trauma was similar to the way some people freeze when something startles them. The problem is the longer you stay mentally stuck, the harder it is to get out. When you do finally get out you have all the emotional processing waiting for you on the other side which is awkward because nobody will understand why you decided to shut everybody out for years only to make a big deal about it later when you should be over it. At that point it looks like a childish cry for attention any why wouldnt it? You're literally crying over something that happened years ago after telling people for years that you were fine. Peter Levine has some good books on this.

>>24573768
>Okay but the difference is you have no remote reference or even appeal to your claim
And you think a freshman psych class is the forefront?
You are so small.

>>24571331
So pretty much she is providing cover for pedos but is feigning moral indignation to save face. An especially common human vice these days. Also she works at INCAE which is undoubtedly CIA

>>24573784
Many of the subjects she interviewed described the sexual relationship as enjoyable, or neutral, before reconceptualizing what happened to them as "abuse" according to society's antisexual moral framework. Subjects claimed to have felt no negative feelings about these events before this reconceptualization occured. She found this surprising, because even she, as a Harvard psychologist, had drank the antisexual koolaid, and expected the subjects who responded to her advertisements to describe these sexual relations as aversive, and coerced/forced from the offset.

This alone was enough to cause massive controversy, leading to people accusing her of promoting pedophilia, despite her being an avowed anti-pedo. She uses biased, antisexual language throughout the book, referring to all adult-child sexual relations as "child sexual abuse".

People don't want to hear about reality: kids are sexual, and they enjoy sex, including with adults.

Your response is stupid and you haven't even bothered to read a short description of OP's book. A child is not a vegetable. A child is fully conscious, and perfectly capable of understanding whether or not they find an experience enjoyable or not.

Antis often make the comparison between sexual activities, and drugs, claiming that similar to drugs, there are negative consequences inherent to sexual activities, despite being pleasurable, which take effect after engaging in them, which a child is incapable of understanding. But apart from the (minor) risk of physical injury and disease, there are no negative consequences of mutual, enjoyed sexual activities beyond subjective reinterpretation, which is heavily mediated by social attitudes towards sex. Most of the subjects in OP's book would not have experienced any negative feelings about the sexual relations they partook in as children, had they lived in a society which was not harshly opposed to adult-child sex.