Comparing Rape To Being Cheated On

[Abstract]

Terminology:

Little t and big T trauma: Informal terms (rather than diagnostic terms) used by professionals to describe types of events and their possible outcome. Big T trauma would essentially be the diagnostic criteria for PTSD (relating to the event).
Trauma: when used generally by us and conversationally by professionals relates to big T trauma/the type of events that fit the criteria for PTSD.
Trauma: official diagnostic term relates to a reaction and not just an event - generally a reaction to big T trauma - and is directly related to PTS and PTSD.

This is how I understand it anyway!

I guess when Pencil was discussing complex trauma I was assuming she meant complex PTSD. What I would say is that reoccurring so called big T trauma is the most important cause of complex PTSD - it is the core of it - and that little t trauma tends to contribute and muddy the issue. Generally being in an environment that is unnurturing and without the proper support structure.

The general consequences of early little t trauma tend to have consequences on personality, self formation, emotion regulation etc and those can be important factors in complex PTSD from what I understand. Things such as early neglect, emotional and verbal abuse and unresponsive parenting. Repeated big T trauma also impacts those of course.

From what I understand little t trauma contributes a lot to many personality disorders, addictions and other mental health issues.

I don't understand it as being worse but rather that Complex PTSD and whatever the new equivalent DSM diagnoses is does tend to make PTSD a bit more complicated to treat. Because of the emotion regulation, dissociation and personality issues that get in the way.

This is how I understand the big picture anyway....

 

[Pencil]

Yes Abstract, and thank you for setting it out so neatly.

I also have to admit that I made the statement 'more devastating and harder to treat' in reaction to Safenow's statement that T and t can't be compared - and thereby dismissing complex trauma as something LESS (as in littler, smaller) than PTSD. I don't as a rule take part in pissing contests, but that statement got my back up, and I wanted to put complex trauma on the map right next to PTSD.

That does not mean that have not come across the opinion that complex trauma is indeed more devastating and more difficult to treat, and I will, seeing that it's weekend, spend time today to get those references, and to explain.

But for me the main point is not awarding a first prize to T or t. I think it is very important for people to understand the difference between the two, and to know where they find themselves on the map. Or perhaps more accurately, I think it is important for people to understand that others may not have the same T/t issues, and that there is no reason and no excuse to minimize the other, and that depending on the size of the T/t, the challenges and difficulties are different. BUT, the two often co-occur in a specific way; people with little t usually have T, while those with T don't always have t. In other words, people who grow up in a violent, neglectful environment (the soup of t), always have T incidents occurring in that environment. On the other hand, a person could grow up in a loving, supportive environment, and then as an adult be exposed to T, such as rape, war, etc. It is the person with 'pure' T is this case for whom it would be easier to deal with the T, than the person for whom T co-occurs with t.

In MY life (and here I stress 'my' to indicate that it is a subjective experience and that I am not saying it is the same for everyone) I know that the t messes up my life far more than the T.

 

[Hashi]

I also have to admit that I made the statement 'more devastating and harder to treat' in reaction to Safenow's statement that T and t can't be compared - and thereby dismissing complex trauma as something LESS (as in littler, smaller) than PTSD. I don't as a rule take part in pissing contests, but that statement got my back up, and I wanted to put complex trauma on the map right next to PTSD.

That does not mean that have not come across the opinion that complex trauma is indeed more devastating and more difficult to treat, and I will, seeing that it's weekend, spend time today to get those references, and to explain.

But for me the main point is not awarding a first prize to T or t.

And I have to admit that what you said... um... well... got my back up. I felt you were giving a first prize to emotional abuse over other types of trauma, and I don't agree with giving first prizes either. I'm fine with people having opinions on which is worse, if that's based on their personal experiences or on their observations of treating clients, and if it's clear that it's an opinion.

I don't want to make you look up references just because I asked - I was trying to find out the basis of what you were saying, and I think you've covered that, if I've understood correctly.

I understand what you say about how you were feeling. I actually think it's very much like the the whole "being cheated on is like rape" thing - which is what this thread is about. It's important to look at the effects of something, but to do that by holding it up to something else isn't, in my view, the best way to go. Someone is always going to feel invalidated by that.

I'm also still wondering about your use of little t/complex trauma. It sounds to me that your experience was what I and the Royal College of Psychiatrists would call trauma (=big T trauma, if you must) - severe lack of care, leading to complex PTSD. It's not the same kind of experience as, for example, parents always judging a child negatively against his more academically gifted brother.

Personally, I find the whole big T/little t trauma idea very unhelpful. I think a concept that was intended to validate other types of hurt is serving to invalidate what I see as genuine trauma. Personally, I'm with Albatross. Trauma is what could cause PTSD, and it sounds like in your case it has. Other stuff is other stuff, and needs to be recognised and dealt with as it is. I don't think it's useful to put any kind of trauma label on it. It just encourages the "being cheated on is like rape" type of ideas, which are far too simplistic and, I think, have no meaning.

I don't think what you're talking about, Pencil, is little at all - in any sense.

 

[Pencil]

Personally, I find the whole big T/little t trauma idea very unhelpful. I think a concept that was intended to validate other types of hurt is serving to invalidate what I see as genuine trauma. Personally, I'm with Albatross. Trauma is what could cause PTSD, and it sounds like in your case it has. Other stuff is other stuff, and needs to be recognised and dealt with as it is. I don't think it's useful to put any kind of trauma label on it. It just encourages the "being cheated on is like rape" type of ideas, which are far too simplistic and, I think, have no meaning.

As I said, trauma/abuse/PTSD seem to have become everyone's basic human right. It's very much like someone sitting across from you, smiling, talking, carrying on, and saying 'Oh, I have SUCH a migraine!' and wanting to respond: 'Erm, no you don't, you have a slight headache. With a massive headache you would have been less animated. If you had a migraine you would have been lying on the bathroom floor, vomiting'. But of course, good manners won't let you say that. This is what I called the democratizing process, where everyone starts claiming their bit of trauma or PTSD. 'Oh, I went out with a friend of mine who wore a really hideous dress, and people kept staring at her. I'm SO traumatized!' That kind of crap. I think the main problem on this thread is lack of clarity regarding the terms bit T and little t - and I think it is the lack of a 'common language' that caused the friction. And I can see how I contributed to that by dismissing some of my own stuff as little t, whereas it might be regarded as Big T. Here is an excerpt from the article that Abstract provided a link to:

"Trauma must always be considered in the context of each person's individual perception. What may be traumatic to one individual may not be traumatic to another; it is the subjective perception of "threat" that determines the intensity of each person's reaction. In the field of trauma therapy, traumatic events are classified as degrees on a continuum: "big-T" trauma, "little-t" trauma, and cumulative trauma (also called chronic unremitting stress).

Big-T trauma is generally associated with discrete, identifiable events and usually involves distinct memories that the individual can recall. A person who has suffered rape, severe childhood abuse, or a catastrophic illness or injury; unexpectedly lost a relative or friend; or witnessed violence or war has experienced big-T trauma. In the short term, these traumas generally exert the most debilitating physical and psychological effects.

Little-t trauma and cumulative trauma, in contrast, are associated with continual or recurring situations and have more global and lasting effects on the individual. Little-t trauma stems from situations that may seem insignificant or only mildly distressing, but which can lead to extreme reactions. These may include physically uncomfortable experiences like dog bites, dental procedures, or minor automobile accidents, or emotionally painful experiences such as criticism or verbal abuse, repeated failures at school or work, intermittent childhood neglect or isolation, or being bullied or teased.

For young people, little-t traumas may also include "empathic failures" on the part of caregivers. Continual dismissal of a child's feelings -- for example, with words like "you aren't hurt" or "don't be sad" -- represents a caregiver's failure to empathize, or perceive and understand the child's emotional state. When this occurs, there is no "relational home" for the child's feelings, no sense of the safety or security required for the child to express emotions and learn to regulate them.

The effects of cumulative trauma result from recurring situations or experiences. The constant pressures that contribute to cumulative trauma make it extremely resistant to treatment; it cannot be easily alleviated or temporarily managed through common stress-reduction techniques. As with other trauma, pain inflicted over time can become "frozen" into physical symptoms. Cumulative trauma can lead to a state of apathy, hopelessness, and even rage. Examples of cumulative trauma include extended exposure to frightening or stressful situations, homophobia/heterosexism, racism, sexism, classism, poverty, and neglect."

Conclusion: I classified things in my own life incorrectly. My apologies for contributing to the very issue I was trying to clarify :oops:

 

[HëllaBubz]

So, upon telling someone I have many symptoms of PTSD:

Um, just a quick question....have you been actually diagnosed, or is it more than likely that you do have PTSD based on your symptoms?

That line just caught my attention, because it sounds as though you haven't really been diagnosed by (a) professional(s), mind you I'm not discounting your pain and suffering, it was just a point of interest to me....


argh....I'm not sure if what I'm saying is coming across right, I don't want to cause any offence by my question.
Could just be the wording!

 

[Core]

Um, just a quick question....have you been actually diagnosed, or is it more than likely that you do have PTSD based on your symptoms?

No, I haven't been diagnosed. I'm starting therapy as soon as possible, and will ask to be evaluated for PTSD. (I've been through therapy without diagnosis or direction or plans before, for other stuff, and it never really helped.)

Asking is in no way offensive. :)

 

[HëllaBubz]

therapy without diagnosis or direction or plans

Yeah, I get you with that, it really doesn't help you unless you know what to focus on, and what may be causing it.

Thanks for being cool! I know some people may have taken offense to it.

 

[Abstract]

it is serving to invalidate what I see as genuine trauma

Hashi, sorry that you felt invalidated. I suspect you are not alone when I look at some responses here and I started guessing as much. It seems that some people stop at the word “trauma” and can’t get past it despite the definition. And that is legitimate as we all react differently to things.

Out of consideration for your and Alba’s feelings I will talk about category A and category B instead.

I think it possibly taps a little into what I was saying about this topic. That anything like this tends to be a minefield as one is negotiating ones way through a mass of invalidation wounds, sensitivities or beliefs of different types for different people.

I think that is the reason why some category A experiences such as some childhood abuse and other damaging experiences such as bullying who are not truly traumatised (no flashbacks and intrusions) want to say it is the same as PTSD trauma. If they were not battling invalidation wounds I don't believe they would need to do that. Although I guess some is possibly from lack of information. And I am not saying this is the case for you as I would not know but I suspect some who have a problem with an informal system of categorising experiences by professionals which clearly states that something has very different consequences to PTS trauma are also coming from a place of past invalidation and/or suffering as result of the magnitude and awfulness of their trauma not being understood. A bit like the thread where someone assumed that PTSD could be caused by looking at disturbing pictures. That in itself is invalidating.

Personally I see the category A and B issue from the opposite perspective as it clearly states the differences and the likely different consequences. And attempting to describe without can in my opinion lead to other misunderstandings - for example me saying that certain types of childhood abuse and bullying can not fit PTSD criteria: Bullying can include many different things and fit into either of those categories. If there are serious death threats or physical harm then the one and if there are less serious threats, degradation, taunting and only milder physical contact then technically the other. A child being constantly degraded, neglected, unloved and milder physical contact would be considered as category A.

If we take Pencil’s story (I hope you don’t mind Pencil – let me know if you do and I will delete) then lets say she had the physical assaults from her father but her mother always tried to protect her. She battled with her father and afterwards told Pencil it was wrong and that she did not deserve to be treated in that way. She reported it to the police and tried to ensure Pencil was protected. She loved her and Pencil felt able to discuss how the violence made her feel.

She also validated her feelings about what happened and comforted her physically. Pencil felt sure that if it became too much that she could tell her mother and her mother would leave with her. Pencils mother had also always responded to her empathically from when she was a baby. She reflected her feelings and as a result Pencil learned how to internalize that mothering and was able to calm herself and regulate her emotions – to mother herself. She was also comfortable with her emotions despite the intolerable violence that she was surrounded by and although she had serious trust issues she had some sense of being able to trust another human being.

The violence traumatized her (flashbacks, intrusions) and she had all the consequences of that but did she develop complex PTSD? Maybe but maybe not. Because the trapped and emotionally neglected aspect of it as well as the ability to regulate emotions seems to be a big part of the equation as well as negative self image. The positive regard of her mother may just have fortified her sense of self and self belief enough for her to manage without the additional issues of complex PTSD or disorder of extreme stress.

I don't think what you're talking about, Pencil, is little at all - in any sense.

Pencil can correct me but I did not see her as saying it was little in any sense at all and rather that it significantly affects her. Something such as her mother watching without intervening for example.

I think other than reacting to the word “trauma” in category A I suspect people have also possibly reacted to me saying that that category A experiences can still be important and have significant long term effects on peoples lives. I do understand that even that validation can be unhelpful for some. Alba explained that well.

Being held hostage and being repeatedly raped is obviously different from being called “useless, bitch, slut” repeatedly by ones parent but what is sad to me is that there is no validation that the later can still affect peoples lives and mental health. That might not be directly invalidating but I do see it as invalidating regardless. That may well be my perception but I think there is a fair amount of unspoken invalidation of abusive experiences and dysfunctional parenting that are not technically category B.

An awful lot of what people discuss on the site in general would fall under category A. Do they see it as trauma in the true sense? No. But regardless it can cause much distress as well as often becoming entwined with the category B stuff. The poll on which parent you feel most upset with says it all in a way.

I sound fairly rational speaking about this all and part of me is. That part of me is very separate to my own personal feelings about all this. What I have said comes from what therapists have explained to me and what I have read whereas my feelings themselves are very convoluted.

I internally invalidate all of my experiences and sadly it is not only with the category B experiences. I find it very hard to come to terms with some of the things that have had a big impact on me. They possibly formed the platform on which other things happened in my life. I struggle enough to feel my experiences are valid when it comes to experiences that others are likely to tick the little boxes with let alone those that others would possibly not. After this thread I feel much, much less able to speak about any of them (not that I felt I could before). That goes for both category A and B. That is noones fault at all and is totally to do with own vulnerabilities and issues of which I have many when it comes to this. And most of them are not rational in any sense. If I had this same discussion based on my feelings it would read very differently.

And part of the things that stop me being able to speak and get help in general relate to category A experiences. I am sure being traumatised links into it a lot but regardless that is a lot of the source. How to negotiate my way through these things in order to be able to get help for trauma. Most of the time I am certain it is impossible even though impossible never was a stance that I have taken in my life.

Back to the main topic - one of the internal messages I battle with the most is that me being harmed by certain things (both A and B) is an offence to people who have true harm in their lives. Especially when the sheer magnitude is something that isn’t my experience. Or in fact anyone traumatised in anyway. The shame around that is enormous. That very much goes for category A issues too.

More rationally I wonder exactly what would fall short of people’s perception of what should cause “genuine trauma”? What evaluation would be happening in their minds. And what would be considered an insult to their experiences.

Pencil!
I am so glad you have more clarity on this and how it affects you. Yes, it seems that you were equating little t trauma directly to complex trauma.

My brain is in no place to look things up at present but I had a few links from past readings on hand that may be relevant and that you have probably read already but thought I would attach for you just in case. I havn't read them recently and suspect that there might be one or two potentially triggering bits of information in one or two of the last ones.

Also I don’t think Safenow was dismissing complex PTSD or little t trauma and was rather just saying they were different. But that is my take! Just saying that to hopefully help you feel better about it rather than invalidating your response to it.


http://www.traumacenter.org/products/pdf_files/Complex_PTSD.pdf
http://www.traumacenter.org/announcements/DTD_papers_Oct_09.pdf
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3160697/
herman trauma and recovery Trauma and recovery: The aftermath of violence (see the scholarly article).
[DLMURL]http://www.veterans.gc.ca/eng/mental-health/support/factsshg[/DLMURL]
http://qjmed.oxfordjournals.org/content/97/1/1.2.short
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3004735/
this website

 

[Hashi]

Abstract, I think (hope) we're saying the same thing basically, in that all difficult and perhaps devastating experiences should be validated. And that they can have deep effects.

I think what we don't necessarily agree on is the way the validation takes place. Fair enough.

My comment about Pencil's experiences not being little was in response to her linking them to "little t" trauma.

I'm sorry if anyone has felt invalidated. That is not my intention at all. I don't think my phrase "genuine trauma" was a good one, and I'm not even sure now why I used that. My meaning is trauma that could lead to PTSD and I think I'm just finding it too difficult to use any terminology if there isn't a single word "trauma" for what I mean.

My biggest issues with it are:

- People identifying (or their therapist identifying them) with "little t" trauma, when I would see their experiences as trauma-that-could-cause PTSD. They then, quite understandably, might want to justify the severity of a trauma described as "little". So the label hasn't helped the issue of validation in that sense. From my viewpoint it's about validating the severity of their experience (what happened and their response) and the "little" label put on it - rightly or wrongly - can actually be invalidating in itself.

- Reading the link originally posted to explain little and big t trauma, I felt it was still not clearly defined. If there is little t trauma that could lead to PTSD, which I'm still not sure about, then what's the benefit of classifying it as little? If little t trauma couldn't lead to PTSD, then to identify as traumas a range of experiences which couldn't lead to Post Traumatic Stress/Disorder is too confusing for me.

- I think identifying different "levels" of trauma encourages comparison of experiences, and personally I think comparisons are invalidating (potentially, to either side) much more than they are helpful. It's impossible to compare two things without evaluating them against each other. I don't think that evaluation serves either side of the comparison.

- I think identifying other harmful experiences as a type of trauma in order to validate them is not the way to go, either. To my mind harm does not equal trauma. It's not necessary for something to be trauma for it to be harmful. I accept that other people may have other views. I definitely think such experiences should be validated, though.

Abstract, I'm sorry if what I said in any way fed into the internal message that you talked about, I don't mean to diminish anyone else's experiences. In fact, you refer to "true harm" and I would say that things like being cheated on, unloved, mistreated and many other experiences are true harm. I am only trying to keep to a clear definition of trauma and post-traumatic stress. By saying something is trauma or not trauma has nothing to do, in my mind, with whether it's truly harmful. That was the point I was trying to make. I think validation should come for the experience itself, in its own right, whatever it is.

 

[Jlso111187]

I know from personal experiances that when my husband cheated on me my ptsd got worse. I have had ptsd for 13 years now and when he cheated my symptoms got alot worse. I think its because I put alot of effort in to being able to trust him as it is hard for me to trust people due to rape. When he cheated he took all the trust and my safety (as he is my safety) away from me.

 

[The Albatross]

Relate Jlso.

 

[Jlso111187]

Do you now find it harder to get that state of safety back? My husband cheated on me 3 years ago and hasn't since but yet I still don't feel like I got that secure feeling I used to have. At this point I don't feel I ever will.