Lets Create A Ptsd Diagnosis - Off-topic Discussion

[lostforgottensoul]

I do understand that as children we are dependant on other people for survival, but I think there would have to be some perception of that for it to register as a threat? Not saying that you're wrong, just that I don't understand it.

Neither do I.

By the way, in my State, thank god, 3 yrs older and you are commiting statitory rape, therefore if a 17 yr old has sex w/ a 14 yr old or 16 yr old w/ a 13 yr old etc.

But in another State I lived in, the age of consent was 12! :eek:

The phase Catastrophic injury is what confused the hell out of me so @digger you arent alone in the confusion. Ive just been trying to hang back, watch when I feel able and do some research when I feel able and its helped some of the confusion. Not all but someone.

 

[ghotiff]

that arouse distressing memories, thoughts, or feelings about

Does disassociation fall within this. I do t find disassociation distressing but instead dangerous.

 

[ghotiff]

Also...I have physical reactions, more than mental/emotional ones. Are they included, should they be?

 

[Sideways]

Dissociation is being included in the Regulation cluster of symptoms (category F) - all good, we're only up to category C!!

 

[digger]

children have some kind of innate sense of needing to do as their told for survival?

I don't think this is true. Kids naturally push boundaries all the time against their parents, from an early age. That wouldn't make sense if there is such a strong innate instinct to do as your told. Unless there is some understanding of there being a threat.

"running low on nutrition and energy - time to cry so that mum comes and feeds me..."? Nope. We just come out that way, instinctively knowing that mum & dad = me staying alive.

I'm sorry, I'm not finding the right words to articulate this properly, but I can't relate this to what I was asking about. A baby crying and getting fed doesn't add up to me to an innate understanding in children that they must do what they're told or their survival is threatened. I think that is something that would be learned.

In terms of my original question about violence, I can understand that child sexual abuse is a violation (whether it is accompanied by threats or not) and that it's probably my perception of violence that is faulty. I think that's where I need to leave it at. The other stuff is just muddying the water even more for me.

 

[lostforgottensoul]

The other stuff is just muddying the water even more for me.

I think thats where my issue is too.

 

[anthony]

True, but being told to eat up your dinner against your will would not be considered violence even though it is against your volition.

I think you're mixing words being quoted by users, than using the words in the criterion to describe. I used volition in a reply, that word is not used in the criterion.

There is also an actual separate diagnosis for children under 6 versus over and adulthood.

 

[anthony]

Are they included, should they be?

Dissociation is covered in B3: Dissociative reactions (e.g., flashbacks) in which the individual feels or acts as if the traumatic event(s) were recurring. (Such reactions may occur on a continuum, with the most extreme expression being a complete loss of awareness of present surroundings.) Note: In children, trauma-specific reenactment may occur in play.

Already locked in and you can see in the original post. Regulation of dissociative symptoms is what is missing for complex trauma, and @Ragdoll Circus stated, that is not yet for discussion. One criterion at a time please to keep this on topic and functional discussion.

 

[ghotiff]

Dissociation is being included in the Regulation cluster of symptoms (category F) - all good, we're only up to category C!!

I understand this, what I meant was do you (and should you) only meet this criteria if you "avoid" for emotional reasons specifically, and not for other reasons.
I avoid because of disassociation and physical responses (eg vomiting) but I don't "emotionally feel" anything.

I posted at the same time as you, I'm genuinely trying to be on topic.

 

[anthony]

This is off-topic, so I have moved it to the off-topic side discussion, as on topic is only the specifics we're discussing at that time, then everything becomes open at the end again.

See my above response.

 

[ghotiff]

So, avoidance is limited to emotional reactions, not physical ones?
I see this as overly limited as many (maybe particularly those with childhood trauma?) don't emotionally "feel".

 

[anthony]

@ghotiff this is now on topic, as criterion C is being discussed in the other thread. Purely FYI.

So, avoidance is limited to emotional reactions, not physical ones?

No, avoidance is limited to what causes any reaction:

1. Avoidance of or efforts to avoid distressing memories, thoughts, or feelings about or closely associated with the traumatic event(s).
2. Avoidance of or efforts to avoid external stimuli such as places, conversations, activities, objects, and situations that arouse distressing memories, thoughts, or feelings about or closely associated with the traumatic event(s).

You're talking about the end of the line after things have caused x. Physical reactions do not come from physical anything, they come from a trigger, being internal or external. Avoidance outlines both causes that you could ever be exposed to. You can't be exposed to a physical reaction.