News Article: Abusing The Term Trauma

[digger]

Link removed

I can't read the article as the link has been removed :confused:

 

[scout86]

Sounds like an interesting article. What happened to the link?

Someday, maybe soon, they'll diagnosis this stuff with a brain scan I suppose. Meanwhile, maybe this is a stupid question, but, if the abandoned spouse of the sex addict who fears for death by AIDS or what ever, is showing symptoms like PTSD, would his/her therapist not handle things pretty much the same way, regardless of the label? Because, at least this is how it seems to me, what they can do at the moment is pretty much treat the symptoms, regardless of the cause? I know there's a point where you have to handle trauma stuff differently than "regular stuff". (My T had gone on at a fair amount of length about how somethings can make symptoms/ the problem significantly worse.) But, there's another thread around, started by someone who describes their childhood as "complicated". They have been diagnosed with PTSD, but feel that is incorrect because their childhood wasn't bad enough. "No one REALLY tried to kill" them. Does your life REALLY have to be in danger? Do those brain changes, perhaps, come about when you deeply and truly BELIEVE your life is in danger, even if you're wrong?

I'm not saying that I think PTSD can and does develop from being cheated on. That might be "small t" traumatic, but lots of stuff is that, and I think at least most of us, are wired to handle it. I'm just saying maybe this isn't totally cut an dried. I've been in several "I could have been killed" situations. Truly. I've told these stories a bunch because they are kind of funny. Told a couple to my T and he was mildly appalled that I found it funny. None of that caused me more than a moments pause. What actually, apparently, caused my "problems"..... I'd be willing to bet my life was never literally at risk. I don't know that for sure, but I think it's more likely that I just FELT like it was. My mom might have wanted to kill me and wished I was dead, but I seriously doubt she actually would have killed me, and I'd bet she never came real close to acting on her wishes. The guy that molested me? I'm sure he never intended to kill me. He never did anything that left any visible evidence that was enough that anyone noticed, so THAT wasn't really that big a deal either, was it? So, does that mean that I don't actually have PTSD at all? I mean, it certainly could have been a lot worse. There are a bunch of people here who went through MUCH worse. How do you know where to draw the line? I mean, people have been having sex for millennia, its normal, right? How do we know that the Criteria, as it exists now, is "right". What determines what's "bad enough"? Is it a document or the brain/mind of the individual?

I get what your saying about people not REALLY understanding what PTSD is and the problems that follow from that. That concern is real and valid, for sure. And, I think the biggest problem there is people not understanding and not realizing that they don't understand. Educating them seems like a huge challenge. I have no idea how to go about it, other than one person at a time. Maybe starting with what makes the symptoms of PTSD different from the symptoms of "life". The whole "How bad is bad enough?" question is complicated too. I'm just not convinced (yet?) that there's a clear, bright, one size fits all line.

 

[moonbeam]

Than "You are looking in the wrong place. The help you need is not here. But keep looking, because you are indeed deserving of help, just different help."

Amazing. I never thought that crit-A vs non-crit-A issues would be boiled down to "Mario, your princess is in a different castle."

The link has been removed so I can't comment on the original article. But I think it's important for people to realise the difference between stressful, life-changing definitely needs help issues and PTSD. I think there is a conception that you either have PTSD or you should be fine. When there is a whole area of other non-PTSD issues that are still valid. People are the sum of our experiences, we can have a shitty time and need help coping, or be nervous/anxious/depressed/etc. And not have PTSD but still need help. It's just a different issue so needs different help.

Someday, maybe soon, they'll diagnosis t...

I think the thing about it needing to be a life threatening, very severe thing as crit-A traumas are is because the main issue is in the physical part of the brain, the hyp-whatever I can't spell it-campus-thing. Where the brain becomes arrested and doesn't correctly process it as being a past event, which is why it is relived and feels like it is happening now. A lot of terrible things like family dying of cancer, infidelity, etc. Are horrible and its smart to get help to cope with but they aren't the same as PTSD. In the case of losing a loved one to cancer, its horrible and life changing, and you can remember back on the event. Just as most Americans over a certain age remember where they were when they heard about 9-11. But remembering something bad and having a flashback are very different. Just as something horrible happening and a crit-A trauma are different.

 

[Justmehere]

I can't read the article as the link has been removed :confused:

Hmm. I didn't remove the link. I must have broken one of the forum rules on how I posted it.

The article can be found by googling "psychology today abuse of the term trauma" - I hope this is ok to post!

 

[Kefira]

I haven't gone out and googled the article yet, but I think a lot of the issue with the 'misuse' of the word trauma is that the English definition and the psychological definition are not the same.

In psychology, we all have a good understanding of what constitutes Crit A trauma. In English, the definition depending upon the dictionary falls somewhere around "A deeply distressing or disturbing experience". And many times example sentences will include things like divorce, career difficulties, etc. That's fine. The definition is much broader in common usage in the language. The problem is that people fail to understand that that word has a different meaning in a clinical setting than what they might apply in every day life.

 

[Justmehere]

The problem is that people fail to understand that that word has a different meaning in a clinical setting than what they might apply in every day life.

@Kefira, I think you make an excellent distinction here.

Where the trouble happens is when clinical professionals label too many things as qualifying "trauma" in order to diagnose too many people with PTSD. It actually can detract away from what they are really suffering from and effective treatment for that.

 

[joeylittle]

I hope this is ok to post!

It's fine, and I fixed the link. :)

 

[Justmehere]

Thanks @joeylittle!

 

[hodge]

I hope, too, Scout, that someday they'll be able to diagnose this with a brain scan. Maybe they already can? Oh, and it's the hippocampus, Moonbeam. The area of the brain that regulates emotions. I've been in life threatening situations, too, I mean, literally running for my life. I don't know how or why I was protected from PTSD for years, but I was. But when it hit, it hit hard and I've been down for the count since. My therapist keeps saying, "separate the past from the present." Not so easy. Especially when the present is pretty bad because symptoms from the past continually intrude. I'll have to point that out to her next week.

 

[moonbeam]

Oh, and it's the hippocampus, Moonbeam. The area of the brain that regulates emotions. I've been in life threatening situations, too, I mean, literally running for my life. I don't know how or why I was protected from PTSD for years, but I was. But when it hit, it hit hard and I've been down for the count since. My therapist keeps saying, "separate the past from the present." Not so easy. Especially when the present is pretty bad because symptoms from the past continually intrude. I'll have to point that out to her next week.

Thanks. I knew it was something like that but was being too lazy to look it up.

Seperating the past from the present is easier said than done. You should point it out. See what she says.

 

[hodge]

Oh, I have, Moonbeam, and I will again. She just keeps saying to do it . . . remind myself I'm not back in whichever situation I'm flashing back to and that I'm here in my own safe house now, etc. Maybe she'll have a better strategy, but I suspect it's what I just said.

 

[Summer Ava]

The travesty of this article is that equates the relationship with a "sex addict" as one of simply 'cheating'. The majority of men dx with "sex addiction" actually have Narcisstic Personality Disorder and/or are sociopathic. These are, in fact, abusive relationships. The relationships are domestic violence -- the partner endures years of emotional, psychological, and sexual abuse. The abuse often also extends to the children.

I have trauma from childhood and also from DV. My perpetrator was given the dx of "sex addict". The psychological abuse in my relationship was intense -- to the point I often believed that killing myself would be my only escape. My perpetrator sexually abused me throughout our relationship. No person has ever made feel as worthless, degraded, an object, exploited, and subhuman, as he did. He killed me from the inside and permanently changed me. I suffered continously throughout the DV while I was trapped in it, and have also suffered years after, due to the trauma. I have been dx with chronic PTSD by a psychiatrist using CAPS, and dx C-PTSD by a clinical psychologist. I also had my brain scanned by a team of PTSD researchers for a study. My trauma is as real as anyone's here.

I despise the label "sex addict" because it excuses perpetrator behavior and minimizes/ignores the horrendous abuse they inflict on their victims. It's not just "cheating". Wrong on so many levels. These men are dangerous predators, lack empathy, have no conscience, prey on victims, and use an arsenal of abuse tactics to control and intimidate. There's a lot more going on inside these relationships than you think.