The Trauma Myth (book)
Susan Clancy is author of The Trauma Myth, a book that argues that sexually abused children usually experience confusion rather than fear.
Reviews and commentary
BoyChat post about The Trauma Myth by Susan Clancy
Posted by Randy on 2014-January-3 01:22:26, Friday
Susan Clancy is a good person. And she really cares about children. She wants only the best for children.
So when she was young, she studied psychology, and became an expert on the subject. She understood how children (and we're talking young children - pubescents and pre-pubescents) were traumatized horribly for life by having sex with adults. She knew in her heart that it was true. She was absolutely positive about it! She had studied all the writings about sexual abuse of children, and she was a true believer! She had no doubts whatsoever - intergenerational sex seriously harmed children. It was a fact!
But there was just one little thing she wasn't so clear about - just exactly how did intergenerational sex harm children? What was the exact mechanism that caused the harm? None of the experts on the subject seemed to give clear information about what exactly caused the harm to children.
So she decided to find out exactly what it was that caused the great harm to children - the harm that she was certain really existed. And what she found surprised her, shocked her, completely shook her beliefs to their very roots. She found out the truth about the harms of child sexual abuse.
And when she did, she was forced by her colleagues to flee the country, and her until-then very successful career was destroyed forever! She is now a ruined women, doing menial research in obscurity in a small Central-American country, wondering exactly how everything went so horribly wrong.
First read about Susan Clancy and her book:
BOOK REVIEW by Richard Green, in: Archives of Sexual Behavior
(SOURCE: http://www.ipce.info/library/journal-article/trauma-myth)
The Trauma Myth: Understanding the True Dynamics of Sexual Abuse
By Susan A. Clancy. Basic Books, New York, 2009, 236 pp., $25.00
Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010
The headline, press release, book title message trumpeted here is: Most children who experience sexual contact with adults are not traumatized at the time of the experience. Breaking news? Non-traumatic child–adult sexuality has been previously reported by International Academy of Sex Research members Gagnon (1965), Sandfort (1984), Okami (1991), and Rind (Rind, Tromovitch, & Bauserman, 1998). Here, however, Clancy presents it in italicized, bold, upper case 26 font.
Nevertheless, Clancy repeatedly reminds us how evil this non-traumatic (at the time) experience actually is. This moral mantra is identified as the catalyst of later trauma: ‘‘It is the act of sexual abuse and not the damage it causes that makes it wrong’’ (p. 185), ‘‘the act is inherently vile’’ (p. 186), ‘‘why sexual abuse damages victims probably has little to do with the actual abuse and a lot to do with what happens in its aftermath’’ (p. 113), and ‘‘Sexual abuse is very wrong, regardless of how it affects victims’’ (p. 185), etc.
Thus, it is this aura of evil in the adult world that energizes the social construction of trauma that attaches to experience that was not traumatic. Contact morphs to abuse. This is Post- Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) without the T.
Clancy stresses how this insight should shape therapy with traumatized adults. But is Clancy, when broadcasting the trauma myth while invoking the moral mantra, contributing to the problem or the solution? Might her finding be an argument to dilute societal condemnation so that delayed trauma would be diminished? If non-pedophile adults became less excited about adult–child sexual contact that was not aggressive/ violent, as with adult–adult sexuality that is not aggressive/ violent, could this reduce the nascent trauma?
Not condemning adult–child sex is not endorsing it. But it has been around a long time. And it is not going to go away, no matter what code number is attached in DSM-5 or how long the prison sentences that attach. As Clancy dispassionately observes: ‘‘There are always opportunities for molesters to find ways to tarnish the lives of young children.’’
To effect a social reappraisal of some child–adult sexualized contact, parents need not enrol their children on a North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) website in the U.S. or sign them up for summer camp at a Christian Brothers facility in Ireland. But, if parents become aware of an interaction unwanted by the child they can intervene to have it terminated, and if it is not, there are laws to prevent unwanted pursuits. Currently, they are invoked with adult–adult interactions with stalker laws or sexual harassment laws and restraining orders or prison for noncompliance. Were aggressive/violent behavior evident, there are laws to be invoked similar to those involving aggressive/ violent adult–adult sexual conduct.
Of course, there is a power/authority imbalance between adults and children. Children are directed into many activities promoted by adults: passive cigarette smoking, spanking, Hebrew school, Sunday church, bed time, vegetarianism. Why must sex be so different?
Would this hypothetical social reappraisal enhance the prevalence of child–adult sexualized contact? Perhaps. But, if societal attitudes change in the direction of accommodating non-aggressive contact doubles the prevalence rate and is usually non-traumatic in childhood and later, is that to be preferred over half the prevalence rate where most children will later experience trauma?
The penal system could also consider whether the extent of punishment that awaits conviction for child sexual contact necessarily serves the child. If conviction for contact can carry incarceration for decades, is there incentive to eliminate the witness when punishment for that crime may not be much greater? Genital caressing of a child can invoke substantially more prison time than beating a child over the rest of its body.
Some annoyances in this slim volume that are less central to ‘‘whither trauma’’: Here and there I wondered whether Clancy was up for tenure at Harvard when writing this book. ‘‘As the head of Harvard’s Department of Psychology explains in his beautifully written book…’’ Harvard’s Judith Herman is described as a ‘‘famous psychiatrist,’’ but there is no adjective for Jean Piaget, John Bowlby, D. W. Winnicott, or Harry Harlow. Herman is also the author of a‘‘wildly popular book’’ published by Harvard University Press (‘‘Father-Daughter Incest’’).
Clancy forays briefly into ‘‘recovered memories.’’ She turns that now-debunked myth on its head by correctly stating that traumatic events will always be remembered but adds that non-traumatic ones may be ‘‘recovered.’’ Therefore, ‘‘the victims should probably be believed.’’ Even if not a victim? The reader is force-fed the status of some child abuse centers. The New Hampshire Center directed by Finkelhor is ‘‘tremendously influential’’ on p. 61, although losing some esteem two pages later where it is merely ‘‘influential.’’ I wondered when some chapters were written. ‘‘ As the influential psychiatrist Roland Summit recently explained …’’ The explanation was published 22 years earlier.
Some research projects came to mind when reading this volume. In contemporary cultures where child–adult sexuality is less condemned, are the sequelae reduced? What are the longer term consequences when children were not sexually abused but were led to believe that they were? Adults who were convinced that they were abused as little children in the McMartin Pre-School fiasco in California decades ago would provide an interesting doctoral dissertation.
So, what do we see here in this book and this review? Sighted readers will ‘‘see’’ different parts of the child–adult sex elephant. Those invested in the immediacy of the trauma, depicted here as myth, may be incensed for political, moral, or religious reasons. Further, they may ‘‘see’’ a threat to their livelihood in providing therapy for the children. Many who read Clancy’s words that do not underscore the immediate harm to the child will mistakenly ‘‘see’’ her report as pro-pedophile.
Parents who I have suggested might effect a cultural repositioning on some adult–child sexuality, a repositioning that I ‘‘see’’ as potentially helpful to children, might chant the moral mantra and shout me down. They will ‘‘see’’ my position as condoning violation of the child’s trust as well as its body. If the cultural repositioning is effected, some therapists who survive financially by treating adult ‘‘survivors’’ of abuse will ‘‘see’’ themselves taking another hit, following their now extinct ‘‘recovered memory’’ practice. And pedophiles may ‘‘see’’ me as an honorary member of NAMBLA. Characterizing the elephant is not only challenging for the blind.
Click the links below to read the entire commentaries - the following are just very short summaries:
" Susan Clancy's Stake Through The Heart Of The Child Sex Abuse Industry
The most spectacular and debated book on this subject is Clancy's boldly entitled The Trauma Myth. It has driven a stake through the heart of the dogmatic assertion of the child sexual abuse industry that intergenerational sex - even that of infants under 6 and children under 13 with adults over 18 - is automatically traumatic to the younger person. Clancy, who interviewed only victims not hospitalized or in treatment, says that it only traumatizes those 10% compelled by violence and intimidation. [...] Clancy’s work is not without flaws
Dissident " Essay: The Trauma Myth - An Analysis Of The Susan Clancy Interview, Sep 11 2011
This essay concerns an article on [...] Salon.com about the sex abuse industry, this time an interview that columnist Thomas Rogers conducts with controversial author Susan Clancy regarding her extraordinary 2009 book, "The Trauma Myth". This book [...] dispels one of society's most fervent myths about adult interaction with youths: that such interactions are always traumatic for the young person and will transform all such youth participants into emotionally "damaged goods" for the rest of their lives. A section of this essay, headed as "Not women, but men" - True?" gives much information about the role of womenin sexual ans other abuse of children.
" The Trauma Myth by Susan Clancy (book review and commentary by Ray Harris)
Ray notes that many victims are not heared because their story does not fit with the generally accepted trauma model of, among others, David Finkelhor. He notes that Clancy indeed does listen to the victims, but that she also gives a moral judgement. "Always, always listen to the victim. If they tell you they thought it was wrong, but liked it and went along with it, then accept what they say and validate their experience. Whatever you do, don’t become morally outraged on their behalf because then they might to begin to doubt themselves and enter the spiral of negative thoughts that are the real cause of stress. [...] Dare I suggest that more harm, more trauma has been caused by the self-appointed moral protectors than by the the actual abuse itself."
Ipce-member " About the Trauma Myth, Sep 20 2012
Letter from an Ipce-member to Ipce, critisizing Susan Clancy's book and essay about the Trauma myth.
Clancy, Susan A.; " The Trauma Myth: Understanding the True Dynamics of Sexual Abuse, Jun 03 2010
Susan Clancy, in a nutshell, describes her theories on why sexual abuse is not seen as such by victims until the therapist has "reconceptualized" fully for the victim how the victims truly were abused and how their trust had been violated, even though the victims originally deny having felt that they had actually been abused.
" The Trauma Myth - Susan A. Clancy - (book review)
In her book, The Trauma Myth, Susan Clancy, citing her scientific study, details a finding that anyone who has ever been subjected to non-violent, but unsolicited sexual advances in childhood could have come to on their own. Namely, the experience is seldom traumatic to the individual at the time. Although I have not done any formal research in this area, my own experiences, some of which I will expound on shortly, can attest to the validity of Clancy's astonishing finding.</P <P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in" </P
The controversy regarding recovered memories of childhood sexual abuse (CSA) has been characterized by two perspectives. [1] According to one perspective, some people repress their memories of abuse because these experiences have been so emotionally traumatic, and they become capable of recalling the CSA only when it is psychologically safe to do so many years later.
[2] According to the other perspective, many reports of recovered memories of sexual abuse are false memories, often inadvertently fostered by therapists.
In this article, we provide evidence for a third interpretation that applies to a subset of people reporting recollections of CSA; it does not require the concepts of repression, trauma, or false memory. These people did not experience their CSA as traumatic; they either failed to think about their abuse for years or forgot their previous recollections, and they recalled their CSA spontaneously after encountering reminders outside of psychotherapy. Their recovered memories are corroborated at the same rate as those of people who never forgot their abuse. Hence, recalling CSA after many years is not the same thing as having recalled a previously repressed memory of trauma. </P
Who needs repression? Normal memory processes can explain 'forgetting' of childhood sexual abuse
Conclusions in short:
(1) CSA is not necessarily traumatic at the time it occurs,
(2) CSA can be forgotten via normal forgetting mechanisms, and
(3) it may be the retrospective interpretation of the event, rather than the event itself, that mediates its subsequent impact.
This article is in Ipce's Library 3 (because of the double frame needed for text and references) - here is the abstract and a link to the article. </P <P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in" </P <P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in" Now download and read her book:
" The Trauma Myth - Susan Clancy - The Book; 257 pp
Consensual, non-violent/not overtly coercive sexual activity involving adults and minors, contrary to popular belief, does NOT normally cause trauma to young people - even when engaged it at a very early age. Susan Clancy demonstrates this through her research, but fails to reach this (obvious) conclusion in her text.
This file gives some comments and reviews present in Ipce's library, as well as a link to the .PDF version of the book.</P <P STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in" --------------
The Trauma Of Child Sexual Abuse? Sorry Folks, But It Is A <em Myth!</em
--Randy
<strong Read it and weep, second-wave feminists, antis and VirPeds. All the great suffering you have caused for millions of people was all for <em nothing!</em All those BoyLovers lives that you ruined was <em all for nothing!</em <em For nothing!</em </strong <br
SOURCE OF THE ABOVE: http://www.boychat.org/messages/1375077.htm
Anonymous
I am a paedophile and I've read your book ["The Trauma Myth"]. ...
But despite of your wit you write really stupid things about the question. Your prejudice against the child lovers does not allow you to understand simple things. If you are real scientist, not moralist, you would be able to answer the next topics: ... ... ...
So, Susan, I disproved all ideological stratification on your scientific work. ...
And if "victims need to hear the truth" tell them truth.
McNally, Richard J., & Geraerts Elke
The controversy regarding recovered memories of childhood sexual abuse (CSA) has been characterized by two perspectives.
[1] According to one perspective, some people repress their memories of abuse because these experiences have been so emotionally traumatic, and they become capable of recalling the CSA only when it is psychologically safe to do so many years later.
[2] According to the other perspective, many reports of recovered memories of sexual abuse are false memories, often inadvertently fostered by therapists.
In this article, we provide evidence for a third interpretation that applies to a subset of people reporting recollections of CSA; it does not require the concepts of repression, trauma, or false memory. These people did not experience their CSA as traumatic; they either failed to think about their abuse for years or forgot their previous recollections, and they recalled their CSA spontaneously after encountering reminders outside of psychotherapy. Their recovered memories are corroborated at the same rate as those of people who never forgot their abuse. Hence, recalling CSA after many years is not the same thing as having recalled a previously repressed memory of trauma.
Clancy, Susan A., & McNally Richard J.
Who needs repression? Normal memory processes can explain 'forgetting' of childhood sexual abuse
Conclusions in short:
(1) CSA is not necessarily traumatic at the time it occurs,
(2) CSA can be forgotten via normal forgetting mechanisms, and
(3) it may be the retrospective interpretation of the event, rather than the event itself, that mediates its subsequent impact.
This article is in Ipce's Library 3 (because of the dubble frame needed for text and references) - here is the abstract and a link to the article.
Dissident
Essay: The Trauma Myth - An Analysis Of The Susan Clancy Interview, Sep 11 2011
This essay concerns an article on [...] Salon.com about the sex abuse industry, this time an interview that columnist Thomas Rogers conducts with controversial author Susan Clancy regarding her extraordinary 2009 book, "The Trauma Myth". This book [...] dispels one of society's most fervent myths about adult interaction with youths: that such interactions are always traumatic for the young person and will transform all such youth participants into emotionally "damaged goods" for the rest of their lives.
A section of this essay, headed as "Not women, but men" - True?" gives much information about the role of womenin sexual ans other abuse of children.
Harris, Ray
The Trauma Myth by Susan Clancy (book review and commentary by Ray Harris)
Ray notes that many victims are not heared because their story does not fit with the generally accepted trauma model of, among others, David Finkelhor.
He notes that Clancy indeed does listen to the victims, but that she also gives a moral judgement.
"Always, always listen to the victim. If they tell you they thought it was wrong, but liked it and went along with it, then accept what they say and validate their experience.
Whatever you do, don’t become morally outraged on their behalf because then they might to begin to doubt themselves and enter the spiral of negative thoughts that are the real cause of stress.
[...] Dare I suggest that more harm, more trauma has been caused by the self-appointed moral protectors than by the the actual abuse itself."
Ipce-member
About the Trauma Myth, Sep 20 2012
Letter from an Ipce-member to Ipce, critisizing Susan Clancy's book and essay about the Trauma myth.
Clancy, Susan A.
The Trauma Myth: Understanding the True Dynamics of Sexual Abuse, Jun 03 2010
Susan Clancy, in a nutshell, describes her theories on why sexual abuse is not seen as such by victims until the therapist has "reconceptualized" fully for the victim how the victims truly were abused and how their trust had been violated, even though the victims originally deny having felt that they had actually been abused.
Percy, William A.
Susan Clancy's Stake Through The Heart Of The Child Sex Abuse Industry
The most spectacular and debated book on this subject is Clancy's boldly entitled The Trauma Myth. It has driven a stake through the heart of the dogmatic assertion of the child sexual abuse industry that intergenerational sex - even that of infants under 6 and children under 13 with adults over 18 - is automatically traumatic to the younger person. Clancy, who interviewed only victims not hospitalized or in treatment, says that it only traumatizes those 10% compelled by violence and intimidation.
[...] Clancy’s work is not without flaws
Herman, Peter
The Trauma Myth - Susan A. Clancy - (book review)
In her book, The Trauma Myth, Susan Clancy, citing her scientific study, details a finding that anyone who has ever been subjected to non-violent, but unsolicited sexual advances in childhood could have come to on their own. Namely, the experience is seldom traumatic to the individual at the time. Although I have not done any formal research in this area, my own experiences, some of which I will expound on shortly, can attest to the validity of Clancy's astonishing finding.
The Trauma Myth - Susan Clancy - The Book
Clancy, Susan A.
The Trauma Myth - Susan Clancy - The Book; 257 pp
Consensual, non-violent/not overtly coercive sexual activity involving adults and minors, contrary to popular belief, does NOT normally cause trauma to young people - even when engaged it at a very early age. Susan Clancy demonstrates this through her research, but fails to reach this (obvious) conclusion in her text.
This file gives some comments and reviews present in Ipce's library, as well as a link to the .PDF version of the book.
the_trauma_myth.pdf The Trauma Myth - Susan Clancy (smaller download, format not as nice
The Trauma Myth - Susan Clancy (original .PDF format)
The Trauma Myth - Susan Clancy (as .HTML)
The Trauma Myth - Susan Clancy (as Microsoft .RTF)
