#in toxic conditions are seen as 'not deserving' of help and that absolutely is gendered

[iirulancorrino]

Lila Nordstrom, Some Kids Left Behind: A Survivor’s Fight for Health Care in the Wake of 9/11

[incurablyromanticsblog]

Don't know how people are gonna feel about this but Loki should've been dealt with the way they dealt with Lucifer (from the Netflix show) I mean while the show straight up dismissed loki's feelings, lucifer netflix really showed us the natural and organic character growth with ups and downs while still maintaining the comic hilarity (WHICH WASNT AT THE EXPENSE OF THE MC). It's love interest and side characters are all original characters dealt as independent characters rather as brownie or plot points.

And the scenes that prompted me to think this?

1. Lucifer asking his Mazikeen to cut off his wings because he's moved past being a pawn in his father's 'Great Plan'. We could've had loki come to this conclusion and tell Mobius (who would've been an actual all out ally who was forced into doin lg what he did) that he no longer wanted any place in a land that hated him. (Once again like Lucifer calling the silver city hell)

2. Lucifer actually being the way he's supposed to be (angel of light, light bringer etc.) We could've had Loki act like the way he Actually Is. Not like how @iamnmbr3 so eloquently put it 'like larry the dumb lookalike'. We could've had Loki being stern yet having that air of sarcasm and wit that he had in his the films. His eloquence, his physical prowess (none of the falling flat on his face stuff, a lot of people talk about how he was trying not to hurt the people in ep 2 but srsly Loki would just immediately disarm them), and most of all his agency and refusal to cower or the pathetic attempts at lying.

3. Costumes. The lucifer netflix team had an extensive costume department that ironically pales in comparison to what disney is capable of but still we see Lucifer have a wide array of clothes and styles. Have Loki take the first chance to change his clothes. If he wants the 50s aesthetic have at it! he can wear the tuxedos and the nice leather. Or maybe change into some nice Viking-inspired leathers and battle armor. Have him as a pirate, or a knight or a cowboy. You're traveling through time good man! you can at least hit some of the cool spots.

4. In depth analysis of lucifer's mental health. the only episode of the Loki tv show I liked (loose term) is the first one cause it's the only one that gave a fraction of what we were promised: an insight into loki. That's it.

5. Lucifer's organic growth. This is self-explanatory. Loki watched one video and was good. Very good five stars. I understand that they only had six episodes but come-on. You could've had the subtle changes through out all the eps and lead to the big finish finally. With each episode focusing on certain aspects of Loki.

5. Lucifer's exploration of self-loathing. This deserves to be a separate point because Istg it was done so well. Basically lucifer messes up and he's faced with the hatred that's been conditioned into him (not unlike Loki) and then he learns what it is and actually tries to love himself. And not by kissing a female variant of himself (ew and also respect the gender fluid persons). He actually saw the good in him by reflecting and his actual good friends helping him.

6. Lucifer actually wanting to be good. Look Idc what shut mike waldron wrote, loki is not selfish when his whole arc has been doing things for asgard, thor, odin, frigga etc. We all know that New York was mind control, I do not know why it's being swept under the rug. But here's the thing, that self loathing I mentioned earlier is a huge part of Loki thinking he's some monster and intent on proving it.

7. Lucifer facing his 'devil-face'. Loki should've come to terms with his Jotun heritage. The TVA could've had a case in Jotunheim concerning the Royal Family and Loki could've seen the entirety of Jotunheim and it's people not just that most-likely war propaganda the Asgardians force-fed him. Maybe have him meet his siblings or better yet his mother. There's a very nice fic on A03 called Asgardian Galdr that deals with this beautifully.

8. Luicfer having a Breakdown and Crying: First off this happens gradually, his problems pile up etc etc. and he faces off his father and gets angry until he finally breaks down. And basically God says, "I'm sorry but i can't fix you," And Lucifer in all his grief and desperation asks, "But you're God,'. I know we talk a lot about Loki being made weak in the Show but that's specifically about him being made weak and helpless to make Sylvie seem like a stronger character (Don't get me started on the Sif and Narcissm scene istfg), But maybe seeing Loki try awkwardly to be good and near the finish of the show we see it blow up in some angsty way? only for some conversation like this to happen and have Loki understand that being good is something that is innate and something he already had the potential for all along. Maybe learn that he's not lawful good but as always the morally grey character we know him as. (Protector of misfits, god of outcasts i.e all the shit Marvel shat on) and rise as the God of Chaos and Stories against the rigid bonds of The TVA and essentially Kang.

9. Lucifer having a nice healthy romantic interest and relationship. Lucifer and Chloe's relationship is more often than not the main point of the show but no matter how much it is focused on it remains health, organic and not a weird allegory for something disgusting. Even if Sylvie weren't a Loki (once again ew) the whole dynamic was toxic. She constantly put him down, and invalidated his feelings (Sounds like Odin huh?) and guess what Loki fell in love with her after one day, one conversation of what love was and Mobius calling her his girlfriend (he also said that it was freakish and i agree). We could've had Sigyn sweet lord. (I'll make another post about this)

10. Lucifer's Sexuality. There is a whole episode in which Loki's paramours are getting murdered and they all vary from men to women to all that comes in between. And there's no shame, no offensive jokes. Have Loki flirt with dudes, i understand ms.karen that this is for children, don't worry the casual sex ;) was offscreen. Have Loki turn into a woman and flirt with woman cowards, maybe make some questionable remarks about horses (That make Sigyn laugh)

11. Lucifer's Powers: lemme sum up, Lucifer can, let's call it, use compulsion on people. He is known for his strength and prowess and abilites to grant favors. Have Loki shapeshift into animals, absolutely mauling people. Have him use his silver-tongue to coax people into making or changing history (Yes Brutus, Caesar is getting to be a bit much, say have you heard how sharp knives are?)

I'm pretty sure there's more that i can't remember rn. And here is one thing i would like to make very clear.

You are not bad for liking the show or hating it whatever. The problem is that the show framed a lot of bad things as good (Anything the TVA did, Mobius' torture session with Loki, the way Sylvie treated Loki only for them to become romantic partners, the Sylkie fiasco as it was offensive to genderfluid people and the bare fucking minimum of LGBTQ and POC rep). The show was also marketed specifically to make us think hey! Loki might actually be the main character only for it to blow up in our faces. We were also promised an actual plot rather than a constantly plot twisting concept that could've been worth something.

Also i'm still working on a Loki fic rn after which i will write a Loki(TV) Rewrite but unitil then ig.

[florrickandassociates]

TGF Thoughts-- 5x07: And the fight had a detente...

This episode is a wild ride, so if you haven’t seen it yet and you aren’t spoiled, don’t read this. Just go watch it.  

Ave Maria plays over a photo montage of cancelled men, including Kevin Spacey, Louie CK, and Scott Rudin. (Scott Rudin, if you don’t know the name, is a Broadway/Hollywood producer who treated his assistants like absolute shit. He’s the inspiration for the possessed producer episode of Evil—I think it’s the third episode of the series—and Robert King does not like him one bit.)  

And then the episode opens with Wackner, Del, and Cord discussing the Armie Hammer cannibalism ordeal. Whew, this is not what I wanted to be thinking about first thing on a Thursday morning. I do not think I can put into words how boring I find debating whether or not someone should have been “cancelled.”  Cancellation is usually about rich people facing consequences for shitty actions, and those consequences have never involved anyone’s rights being infringed upon, so why should I care about someone being cancelled? And, while I know that society/people on Twitter don’t always understand nuance, I’d like to think that when it comes to the most notable examples of cancellation... no one is losing their livelihood over false or minor allegations.  

There are so, so, so many issues in the world. Cancellation affects a handful of high profile, usually white, straight, male, celebrities. Why should I give a shit about, like, Louie CK not being able to make as much money as he used to? I just do not and cannot find it interesting.

I’m not surprised David Cord and Del Cooper find this topic interesting—Del likely hates worrying that all of his comedians could get cancelled and put him in a financially tricky spot; Cord probably says things like “Woke Mob” unironically. And as for Wackner, he almost certainly has a skewed understanding of what actually happens when someone’s cancelled and sees a place where he can step in and add some order. Blah. It’s just so boring.

"People are getting canceled without a trial, no evidence presented against them,” Wackner says. This is not it, Wackner! This is such a strawman argument. We don’t need the legal system to adjudicate people being assholes to each other, and in cases where a crime is committed or a particular individual can sue for damages, that is what happens. If you act shitty and then your sponsors realize you’re toxic and drop you, like, it is what it is. You can feel free to respond via a Notes App screenshot where half of your apology is actually just whining about cancel culture and then you say “I’m sorry if anyone took offense at what I did” instead of saying “I’m sorry I said/did hurtful things” and when people don’t take that seriously, maybe it’s because you didn’t take it seriously, either.  

“There are a lot of reasons these accusations never go to trial. The victims finally get to accuse the victimizer face to face,” Wackner explains. Were the victims asking for this?

Marissa shares my question, noting that if the victims don’t want to speak up, then the victimizer would have the court to himself. This raises a new question: who is even bringing these cases? Are Wackner, Cord, and Del just deciding they want to do things as cases and then getting everyone else on board? This sounds bad!  

Apparently, according to Wackner, “if #MeToo relies on mob rule, it’ll exhaust itself.” What... evidence is there for this? I get why people panic about the POSSIBILITY of this happening, even though I don’t share their panic, but is there any actual evidence that #MeToo is losing steam because of false allegations because cancellation isn’t a formal process? I don’t believe there is.  

The test case we have the pleasure of seeing this week is about “Louie CK two,” whom I shall refer to as LCK2 instead of learning his name.  

Now, suddenly, Marissa is asking one of LCK2’s victims to testify. She doesn’t want to participate because it’s just another way for LCK2 to get his career back. Marissa decides to be idealistic and say this is a real opportunity to confront LCK2 with his crime. I suppose she isn’t wrong, and that is what happens next, but, again, meh.

Apparently David Cord is going to defend LCK2. You know what would get cancelled in five seconds? A David Cord funded show that has David Cord actually on it, railing against cancel culture! Can you IMAGINE the thinkpieces?

God, when is this episode going to move on from this extremely irritating premise?

Marissa decides she wants to be the prosecutor. Wackner says if she prosecutes LCK2, she has to prosecute the academic who used a word that sounds like the n-word and lost her job for it.  Marissa thinks the academic shouldn’t have been fired, but Wackner insists she has to take both cases.

“Let’s go into court,” Wackner says, and, thank goodness, we do go into court: REAL court, where we are talking about REAL issues.  

In court, Liz and Diane are suing the police over the death of a black girl who was tased by the police. Her friend is on the stand and it’s quite emotional. Also, Diane tries to pass Liz a note and Liz ignores it. Why would you have two name partners on this case if they aren’t even going to try to work together?  

You can tell things are tense between two TGF characters when they talk at the same time in court but are on the same side.  

Hiiiiii Abernathy! ILY!

The victim had a heart condition, which the police lawyer argues is the actual cause of death. Police lawyer also argues that since this witness posted some ACAB lyrics on Instagram, she must be biased. Eyeroll.

Liz calls the other lawyer racist; the other lawyer tries to make Liz look like she is only on her client’s side because she’s black and that Liz is being absurd.  

Cancel culture court happens. We’re dealing with the academic case first. I don’t feel like talking about the cancel culture shit too much, so here is my take on this case as a whole: (1) I don’t think the actual word in question, which isn’t actually the n-word, is enough on its own to get someone fired (2) I also don’t think anyone can use that word, regardless of its meaning or history, without understanding how it will come across. (3) The teacher did not get fired for simply using this word once (4) This teacher believes that anyone who is from a group that’s been marginalized in history should have to confront that marginalization with as little sympathy and respect as possible because it will help them be more resilient. So basically, if you are from the dominant group then you don’t get challenged. She believes it is her job to do this. She is an egotistical asshole who has no business teaching.  

Cord wants everyone to have to say the full word in question. He says this pretentiously (though I don’t think saying “Said word” is that pretentious, tbh) and Wackner rules against him and also makes him wear a powdered wig for using “obtuse language.”

Marissa is not trying at all with this case at first, since she doesn’t believe in it. That’s shitty, Marissa. If you want to be a lawyer at a firm like RL you’re going to have to fight for all of your clients.  

Marissa makes a Latin joke and ends up in a powdered wig, too.  

The prof says, in one sentence, that she didn’t know what she was doing using the word and also that the black student who took offense thinks college is supposed to be warm, cuddly, and unchallenging. So it was a challenge, then, prof?  

I like this student. And I love that she calls Marissa out for obviously not trying.  

“The optics matter. Racially,” Diane says to Liz, who agrees. Diane, strategically, makes it about gender first (the cop is male, some jurors may react to a woman questioning a man), then makes it about how she should be the one questioning the cop since Liz is black. It would make the jury more “comfortable” (hey, there’s that word again!) Diane says. She says she is being pragmatic.  

Diane says that she could be “more dispassionate”. Be or come across as, Diane? Either way, Liz, who knows full well what the optics look like given that this isn’t her first time in court, doesn’t agree with Diane that they need to come across as dispassionate.  

Then Diane just changes the subject to the firm drama. “Liz, you’re shoving me out of my name partner position because of my race.” Like that’s the issue!  

“I am doing nothing. You are the one who got our racist clients to whine to STR Laurie about us,” Liz counters. “Those clients bring in a great deal of money, and they are not racists,” Diane insists. Yes. Sure. Diane just happened to choose white male clients who were “comfortable” with her to talk to. I have no doubt they’d have reacted poorly to any change in representation, but Diane was counting on those particular clients having some discomfort with their new lawyers.  

Liz calls her out and Diane’s still trying to play it like she just had to inform her long-term clients and it just had to be done this way. But, when Liz asks if Diane thinks the clients would’ve had the same reaction if their new representation were to be white, Diane says that maybe her clients are worried about racial grudges. So, what you’re saying is you knew exactly what you were doing, huh, Diane?  

I get why Diane doesn’t like being pushed out, because who would, but Diane, this isn’t about you. And if you didn’t want to make it about race, perhaps you shouldn’t have appeared on a panel about how great it is that your firm is majority black? You can’t have it both ways.  

Liz notes that Diane felt “entitled” to her name partnership. This is accurate, though based on revenue and stature I don’t think it can be denied that Diane deserves name partner status (generally speaking). Diane went over to RBK, was like, “sure, I’ll be a junior partner, thank you so much for the opportunity, I can’t even pay my capital contribution right now but what if I were name partner in three months?” and that is both entitlement and knowing one’s own worth, but mostly entitlement.  

(Liz does not act entitled, but if we want to get into who deserves their partnership more—again generally speaking, not their partnership at a black firm specifically—it is definitely Diane! Liz literally only has this job because her dad was important.)  

“I think that Barbara Kolstad was shoved out because you felt entitled to her position,” Liz shouts. OMG, a mention of Barbara?!?!?!??!?!? THANK YOU, WRITERS!!!

(This is a slight bit of revisionist history but I’ll allow it, and I think it’s right in thought even if it’s not right on the details. Barbara wasn’t shoved out—Barbara chose to go to a different firm that offered her a better deal—but I don’t think Barbara would’ve been on that trajectory had it not been for Diane’s presence at the firm. Barbara was in charge of a firm that shared her values when, suddenly, her partner decided that they needed to pursue profit over all else and needed Diane to execute that strategy. Maybe no one made a move directly against her, but Adrian and Diane changed the mission of RBK until it was no longer somewhere Barbara wanted to work.

“We can’t work together if you don’t respect me,” Diane screams at Liz. “No, we can’t work together if you use race cynically,” Liz responds. Diane gets even angrier, swears a bunch, and then says “You want to come after me, you come after me with an honest argument about my lack of competence, my lack of worth.” Diane, you are fighting a completely different battle here! You can be entitled and also correct and also good at your job. This is what you used to accuse Alicia of all the time. The fact you’ve turned this into something about your skill level when it’s about the meaning of having a black firm is only proving Liz’s point.

“Your unworthiness—which you don’t seem to want to acknowledge—is that you can’t be the top dog in a black firm,” Liz says. Exactly. But Diane just storms off.

Now the cop is on the stand. He did not know the victim had a heart condition. Uh, obviously, why would he have known that?  

Liz is aggressive in court; Diane thinks this is the wrong strategy. Without knowing who is on the jury, I have no idea which one of them is correct.  

The next move is to get the cop’s ex-wife, who he abused, on the stand.  

Goodie, it’s cancel culture court. Things go well for Marissa, but Del wants to know why Marissa wasn’t that passionate about the n-word case. Marissa says she feels like it’s not the n-word, like that is a valid reason to not represent your client to the best of your ability. “It is. It always is,” says Del.  

Marissa heads back to RL, and as she walks, the camera follows her and moves through the space until we end up in Liz’s office, where she gets a news alert about the cop from the COTW. He’s been killed, seemingly in retaliation for his actions. The news is quick to suggest the trial might’ve encouraged the killing. “Oh, fuck.” Diane says as she watches the news. Aaaand credits (at 20 minutes in!)  

From the promos, I thought this was going to be a Very Serious Episode about police brutality. From the opening, I thought it was going to be an insufferable episode about cancel culture. I was wrong! (Though, I suppose, some of the cancel culture stuff is still insufferable.)  

Yay for Carrie Preston, who directed this episode. I read an interview with her and she talked about how there’s a “look book” for directing TGF episodes and I have never wanted to see anything as badly as I want to see this look book. (Am I exaggerating? Probably. But I might not be.)  

After credits, Marissa finds Carmen and Jay to ask them if “n-word-ly" is offensive. She acknowledges she’s being annoying but they let her continue anyway. Jay finds it offensive. Carmen does not. This seems fitting with their characters, and I love that this scene acknowledges that not every black person is going to have the exact same reaction to everything.  

I want Carmen to have more to do! While I’m glad the show isn’t forcing her to have a large role in every plot just because, I feel like she’s gone missing for the middle part of the season. My guess is that their priority with Carmen is setting her up to be an ongoing part of the cast who grows into being someone we want a lot from rather than forcing her plots from the start... but surely we could get a little more of her! I doubt she’s a one-season character like I assume Wackner will be.  

The cop’s murder changes the vibe in court. Abernathy calls a moment of silence in his memory. “We’re fucked,” Liz whispers to Diane.  

And indeed they are. The cop’s ex no longer wants to talk about how abusive he was—she wants to talk about how great he was. Whose idea was it to still put her on the stand?! Idk about legal procedures but this seems like a really avoidable mistake!

Diane argues that the cop’s death has prejudiced the jury. Abernathy decides to call a “voir dire de novo,” using an obtuse Latin phrase that would not be permitted in Wackner’s court. (Love the little parallels in this episode, like this, the transition between courts earlier, and how much of Marissa being called out on her whiteness feels like a thematic extension of everything going on with Diane.)

Cancel culture court continues. Carmen shows up.

I don’t really get how June, the victim of LCK2, potentially losing a headlining gig for a bad set instead of retaliation from LCK2, scores him a point. One, if she was a rising store, one bad set shouldn’t have damned her career. Two, isn’t it enough to prove that he masturbated in front of women who didn’t want him to do that???????  

Having June perform her act with no prep in Wackner’s court so they can judge whether or not she is funny is a wildly bad idea. So now Wackner is an arbiter of humor as well as cancel culture?  

This whole system is silly and I reject the whole premise but June should not lose two points for the logic that Wackner + the audience don’t find June funny --> June must’ve had her career derailed because she just isn’t funny (how’d she book the headliner gig, then?) --> LCK2 scores points??? He still masturbated in front of her without her consent!  

Using cancel culture to show Wackner’s court is going too far/slipping into bad territory: I’m on board with this. Using Wackner’s court to actually comment on cancel culture: Ugh. The writers seem to be trying to do both.  

Lol at Abernathy having Stacey Abrams’ book on his desk.

Marissa argues the n-word case more passionately, because these writers love to make situations that seemed clear cut seem more uncertain. It’s no coincidence they have the sexual harassment case look murkier (though, again, June being bad at comedy does not negate the sexual harassment!) right before they have the n-work case begin to tilt in favor of the professor’s cancellation.

Hahah what bullshit about trying to prepare the students for a world that won’t be kind to them. Do you seriously think your black students need YOU to prepare them?  

This lady thinks history classes have to describe rapes in detail to get students to sympathize. No, no they fucking do not.  

She also says she’d use the n-word if she were teaching a topic where it might come up. Um, no?

Mr. Elk (this is what I call Ted Willoughby, Idiot Reporter, after he said “things of that elk” in his first appearance) is attacking Diane and Liz on his show. Diane and Liz are, apparently, “Marxist slip-and-fall lawyers” and Mr. Elk plays a clip of Diane saying cops need to be held accountable. Obviously, this was before the cop’s death and meant to be about the legal system, but it looks like Diane’s calling for his murder. I also love how they go out of their way to only pause the clip on unflattering frames of Diane.  

Liz wants to use this in court—I forgot that Liz is super sneaky but this tracks; she is always quick to use things to her advantage and we’ve known that about her since her strategy with the DNC in 2x07 (to make outlandish allegations and then drop them before presenting proof). Julius wants to get Liz and Diane security.

That security is, apparently Jay. I think they’ve shown Jay as security before when Lucca went viral. I didn’t understand it then and I don’t understand it now.

I was, briefly, worried for Liz and Diane’s safety, especially after I saw all the angry cops waiting for them in court. Then I thought, oh, well at least they’re in court, they should be safe from being shot there. Then I remembered 5x15. Then I laughed at myself.  

Liz’s new strategy works and Abernathy uses more Latin. But, they can’t get any more jurors thrown. (They’re going for a mistrial.)

Oh, Carmen is back again! She did SO MUCH in that court scene where she appeared and then disappeared! She’s chatting with Marissa and spots LCK2 in the RL offices.  

Apparently, LCK2 negotiated a contract with Del, with David Lee’s help. (Why would David Lee be doing entertainment law?) Suddenly everything makes sense to Marissa.

She calls Del to the stand. This—and, honestly, everything after this—makes me wonder how much of this would ever make it to air. Why would Del televise this?

What a shock—Del wants LCK2 back on his streaming service (which I don’t think has a name LOL).  

Somehow Marissa’s questions become about Wackner and whether or not Wackner is an impartial judge, which doesn’t seem like the core issue. Wackner has made it pretty clear that his stance is that he doesn’t care if others are corrupt around him or try to use him; he’s going to be impartial no matter what. Why not play that up instead of making the entire show look staged and Wackner look complicit, Marissa?  

Like, why is Marissa asking Wackner if he’s prejudged the case?! Why isn’t she just trying to like, get him to declare a mistrial because there is a conflict of interest? She can make a version of this argument without accusing Wackner of PREJUDGING, which she knows—I know, so she knows—will set him off. Wackner truly believe he thinks he is impartial. It’s not smart strategy to question that (even if we all know that Wackner is not impartial!)

Wackner blows up at Marissa and shouts at her. He tells her to get the fuck out of court.

This is certainly dramatic, but again, would Del ever choose to air this? I doubt it.  

On her way to work, Diane notices hot pink spray paint in the elevator. When she exits the elevator, the whole firm is gathered in the lobby. Someone has painted COP KILLERS across the elevator bank. “Security doesn’t know how they got in,” Jay says. “Of course they don’t,” Diane responds. “They suggest we call the cops,” Jay says. I love this little exchange. I wasn’t exactly wondering how someone got in, but I like the show making it clear how unprotected Diane and Liz are right now and why.

Julius appears and says that Mr. Elk is saying something new. Diane and Liz sit down to watch and the tone of this episode completely shifts.  

I had forgotten completely that Liz’s dad’s assault issues are out in public until Mr. Elk called him “a disgraced civil rights leader.” It doesn’t feel like they’re out in public! Also I would believe Mr. Elk calling him disgraced for no reason at all.  

Y’all, when Mr. Elk said the name “Duke Roscoe,” my jaw dropped. WHAT A CALLBACK.  

This scene, and really, everything in this plot from here on out, is a delight. It just keeps going and going. It is the best kind of fanservice.

1x11 has been, for no real reason, on my mind since 5x04. It popped out to me as an example of this show’s humor so I talked about it in that recap. I nearly mentioned it in my 5x06 recap when Diane laughed at Julius’s suggestion that they start a firm together. I rewatched 1x11, by complete chance, like two weeks ago. How weird that I'm somehow on the show’s wavelength about this!  

Also I made a joke about Mr. Elk last week without knowing he’d be back this episode. I would like to think I conjured this.  

(1x11 is a really pivotal episode for TGW, even if it isn’t one of the most notable episodes overall. It's composer David Buckley’s first episode and that ending, with Diane laughing, is one of the earliest moments of TGW showing its sense of humor and playing to its strengths.)

Mr. Elk notes that they “rarely see” Kurt, which is apparently evidence that Diane is a lesbian. Hahahahahahah. Mr. Elk also wouldn’t want to note Kurt, despite his recent controversy, because to his viewers, Kurt’s beliefs would make Diane seem more sympathetic.  

GUYS, THE WRITERS DECIDED TO MAKE A CALLBACK TO AN ICONIC MOMENT FROM AN EPISODE THAT AIRED OVER A DECADE AGO AND THEN BUILD ON IT. I cannot express how fucking happy this makes me.  

Now, Mr. Elk says, Diane and Liz are an item!  

What’s better than Diane laughing hysterically at the original allegations? Diane doing it again, eleven years later, JOINED BY LIZ.  

This also works super well to cut the tension between Diane and Liz. I assume this isn’t the end of the name partnership drama, but I think it might be the end of Diane and Liz being pissed at each other. Since the name partnership drama was never really about Diane and Liz (Liz seems to want Diane to stay on...), I’m fine with that.  

Because this is an episode full of callbacks that delight me, Del asks Liz when he gets to meet her son! HER SON STILL EXISTS!  

It sounds like Liz and Del still aren’t fully official, which clarifies why they don’t seem to be a couple in public.  

Del brings up the Diane rumor (jokingly) and Liz jokes along. I love that we get to see this playful side of Liz.  

Wackner’s watching his outburst with regret. Del calms him down and notes that this is good TV (why... would Del air this... it makes DEL look worse than anyone!). Wackner calls Marissa to apologize; she picks up and accepts his apology.  

Abernathy calls Liz and Diane into chambers. He’s worried he was “insensitive”-- he's noticed the tension between Liz and Diane, but now he thinks it was a lover’s spat.

Diane puts on a poker face and leans in towards Liz. She starts nodding attentively and thanks Abernathy. Liz smiles and doubles down: she’s not just going to play along, she’s going to milk it. She gets a juror kicked for homophobia, which means a mistrial. Shameless. I love it.  

Diane and Liz playing off each other as Abernathy tries to look like as much of an ally as possible is comedy gold.  

Diane even calls Liz darling. Omg.  

LCK2 is on the stand, being charismatic and annoying. Of course he is. This is what happens when you give someone who is known for being able to connect with a crowd... a crowd and the benefit of the doubt.

LCK2 is talking about “stupid women” in his new set. Why... is Del giving that a platform at all? See, the fact that Del thinks it is not only interesting but also somehow essential to let LCK2 make jokes about sexual harassment is why I can’t take this episode seriously. Why should I be more outraged about someone who did something shitty not getting a trial for his shitty but legal behavior than I am about powerful people continuing to offer shitty people platforms? Only one of these seems outrageous to me.

Wackner decides that the professor did something “awful but lawful” and that’s it. So you’re saying that if it isn’t illegal, it doesn’t get decided in your court, either? What was the point of this, then?  

The professor says she doesn’t want that—she wants the school to know she’s being punished so she can get her job back. The student storms out, rightfully. Wackner’s job isn’t to offer someone who wants punishment some form of penance, like she can exchange community service hours for offensive remarks. It’s to... well, idk what it is to do, since this whole thing doesn’t really make sense and he makes the rules, but I don’t think his verdict has to be about giving anyone what they want. I’m disappointed that Wackner comes up with a punishment and I don’t think it’s going to get her her job back.  

LCK2 loses, too, because he hasn’t made amends. Wackner doesn’t want to fine him because he’s too rich for a fine to matter. Cord argues that LCK2 deserves a second chance. I mean, sure, but is he being denied a second chance? He doesn’t deserve an easy path back to his fame just because he wants it.  

Wackner mentions prison. At first I was like, oh, that’s a nice throwaway line that he mentioned prison! This ties into what I was saying a few weeks ago about how Wackner likes the institutions that already exist—he just thinks they’re imperfect! It’s fitting that he’s not a prison abolitionist!  

And then the episode actually went there: Wackner, thanks to David Cord’s private prison company, actually sentences LCK2 to prison. This is deeply uncomfortable (and of questionable legality). Wackner’s system is just going to recreate prison? Worse, private prison? He’s creating an unchecked, privatized legal system?! This sounds bad! Kudos to the show for taking this to some place so dark—I knew Wackner’s system would start to show cracks, but I didn’t realize they’d go this far.  

And I’m not sure what the end game is with this! All I know is I’m not on board with Wackner sending people to prison (except as a plot—I am very on board with this plot) and neither is Marissa.

I do not think viewers of the reality show will like the prison twist or the fact that Cord is financing a court and prison! Can you imagine the scandal!

And what do the contracts look like that allow Wackner to sentence someone to prison? Can LCK2 leave any time he wants? If so, then how does the prison sentence help? If not, is that legal?  

Del wants it to be a 2 week sentence, not 3, because this means LCK2 will have to miss his taping in two weeks. I have many questions. (1) Is Wackner’s show airing live? If not, then why do they need to rush the taping of the special? They could push it quite easily. (2) Why can’t they push the taping? This guy is a huge deal and enough potential $$ that Del wants to rehabilitate his career... so why does the taping have to be on this particular day and time?  

Is there really an Exxon Mobile case, I wonder?  

I like that we spend a good amount of time watching Marissa’s reactions to this latest addition to Wackner’s court. Combined with the score, Marissa’s facial expression serves to underline that private prisons are not good here! This isn’t Wackner getting legitimate methods of enforcement... this is just opening a pandora’s box of highly questionable extrajudicial practices.  

I do love that this episode ends up here: it starts out like it’s going to be about cancel culture silliness and ends up being about the escalation of Wackner’s tactics.

Funny how both of the cancelled people end up being found guilty by Wackner, huh! Almost like they actually did something wrong and faced the consequences!  

Liz and Diane get called in to talk to Liz’s favorite department: HR. They’re asked to sign “love contracts” to confirm things are consensual. I find it hilarious that HR gives them the paper before even asking if it’s true.  

Liz grabs a pen and signs. Diane follows her lead. They look at each other and smile politely at HR.

I am... not sure how to read this last scene! Is it a fuck-you to HR? A way of easing tensions? A way for Liz to get people to stop talking to her about removing Diane as name partner because no one will want to ask if they’re really involved? Something else? Help me understand!

Curious to see where things go next. I can see LCK2 coming back for another episode but it also wouldn’t surprise me to never see him again. Similarly, I could see some glances/discussion of Diane and Liz’s romantic relationship next week, or I could see it never being mentioned again, or I could see it being mentioned next season out of the blue.  

[gillzilla]

A Treatise on the aTROSity, Including How Hope Came to Me in the Form of The Lego Movie 2, Knives Out, and Little Women

I will start out by saying that I have never made a real, detailed post on Tumblr, mainly because social media kind of scares me. But the Reylo community's amazing kindness, strength, openness, and willingness to speak the truth in their writing over the last week and a half is honestly what has gotten me through the heartbreak and depression caused by the stabbing in the chest that was this movie. I am one of the people who loves Kylo/Ben Solo because I have mental health conditions and an abuse/trauma history within my family, which is also why the holidays are hard for me, so a big thanks to the people in charge of the story for TROS for making it even harder this year. After a week and a half of legitimate mourning for the butchering of the themes of Star Wars and of all the characters, but particularly the sequel trilogy characters, I am ready to add my two cents to all that has already been written about this movie.

First off, I have not been a Star Wars fan for my whole life. My parents tried to introduce me to the original trilogy as a kid by taking me to see A New Hope in the movie theater for the 20th anniversary screening in 1997. I fell asleep for most of it and was terrified by the trash compactor scene, so you could say the movie did not resonate with me. It actually wasn't until Phantom Menace came out that I started to get attached to Star Wars. So many older fans love to shit on that movie, and it certainly has many flaws, but a lot of us who were around the same age as Anakin when that movie came out and are now adults have started to speak up about how the movie was a gateway into Star Wars for us. Anakin gave me a window into the Star Wars universe that I could understand and relate to. I could relate to Anakin being a kind-hearted kid who wanted to help others and just wanted adults he could look up to, and I liked the podracing scenes. As with every single other sci-fi/fantasy hero's journey story that I loved as a kid, I empathized with and related to a male hero. Now, the wooden dialogue/acting/directing of Attack of the Clones and the tragic ending of Revenge of the Sith that left me so emotionally devastated that I vividly remember calling my friend to tell her I was so depressed I couldn't focus on studying for my eighth grade English final, kind of took me out of Star Wars again. There had been a spark there, but at that point I figured, eh, I guess it's not really for me after all.

I didn't rediscover Star Wars until the end of the first semester of my freshman year of college. This was a very difficult time in my life, as I was in what I would now consider to be a mental health crisis that unfortunately lasted for five years because I was too ashamed and uneducated about mental health to seek out help. I was very, very lonely during that time. It was close to finals week and I was sick, so as I sat in my dorm room I decided, why not pop in those DVDs of the original trilogy that I got at Costco last month. After watching them, I remember thinking, "Why have I not been watching these my whole life???" The original trilogy hooked me after that point and I started watching the movies every year around Christmas in commemoration of my rediscovery of them.

I was just as surprised as anyone when I found out that Disney bought Lucasfilm and that they were going to make a sequel trilogy. I had thought there would never be any more Star Wars, so I was overjoyed, though tentative, because I knew that though I loved Star Wars, it also had a tendency to make missteps that were somewhat endemic to sci-fi/fantasy hero's journey stories, such as poorly written dialogue, emphasis on ridiculous plot points that took away from the deeper overall themes, lack of diverse characters, and objectification/misogyny against female characters (I do not like watching Return of the Jedi because I hate, HATE the Jabba's palace stuff for what they did to Leia, honestly they gave Leia nothing interesting to do in that whole movie basically, but that's a whole nother essay).

So I went into The Force Awakens not really knowing what to expect. But oh my god, was I blown away. I am not lying when I say that I cried for at least an hour after the scene where Rey and Kylo are both reaching out for the legacy saber and it goes to Rey as the music swells, oh my god. I FINALLY realized what it meant to feel seen in the stories that I loved. My whole life I had been attached to and empathizing with male heroes, because they were pretty much the only heroes out there. To see Rey as this amazing female heroine who was not objectified and was a compelling character with an intriguing backstory that I related to as a child with a trauma history who often grew up feeling lonely, and to see that she was going to be the main Jedi in this new trilogy, I was overjoyed. It gave me hope. And then, on top of that, we got Adam Driver. Need I say any more. So many people have written about what an absolutely incredible actor Adam is, and I swear he is the only actor who could have pulled off the role of Kylo/Ben. The first time I saw TFA I didn't catch all the nuances of the character and his dynamic with Rey, but something about him really intrigued me (and made me want to watch everything Adam had ever been in). My love for TFA led me to start investing time in the online Star Wars fandom, which I never considered myself to be a part of previously, as the fandom had always reeked of being a "no girls allowed" type of zone. I found out about amazing, female-led podcasts that I started listening to every week and whose hosts I value just as much as my friends. I also started following the Reylo fandom on Tumblr. Learning more about the mythology behind the sequel trilogy, including how the creators were writing Rey's story as a heroine's journey and her and Kylo/Ben as dual protagonists, added so much to my understanding of what was going on in the storytelling and gave me the words to describe why I was connecting with these stories so much. I can honestly say that Star Wars and the Reylo fandom generally have been instrumental in helping me to get through the last four years, which have been a very difficult and isolating period in my life.

And now I'm up to TROS. As so many have said, the vast majority of it is a steaming pile of trash. People have done such an amazing job of breaking down why this story and how it treated its characters and retconned the beautiful story and themes that Rian gave us in TLJ was so painful for us. Many have pointed out that this movie is a result of catering to the most toxic portion of the Star Wars fandom, the "dudebros." Going further, I want to state that, whether consciously or not on the part of the cis, straight, white, male writers/director/CEO of Disney, this movie is a reassertion of masculinist ideologies. I want to clarify that when I talk about "masculinist" vs. feminist ideologies, I am talking about how our society and culture defines "masculine" vs. "feminine" ideas, traits, etc. Gender has nothing to with biological determinism and is socially and culturally constructed. Masculinist ideologies include beliefs such as extreme individualism, competition, "us vs. them" dichotomies, and power and value being defined based on hierarchy, which necessitates the use of violence to perpetuate the hierarchy. Feminist ideologies include valuing community and collaboration, connection and empathy, the idea that every person has inherent worth regardless of their productivity, actions, mistakes, class, race, sexuality, etc., respect for all people, and an abolishing of hierarchies. Masculinist ideologies are those of the white supremacist hetero-patriarchy, which, as we can see playing out in various ways all over the world, has been rearing its head in a very obvious and ugly fashion the past few years (though of course it has been around for wayyyyy longer than that).

Anyone who has been reading the fantastic analyses of TROS by those in the Reylo community can likely see how TLJ and even the story as it was set up in TFA were communicating feminist ideologies. One big example of this is Kylo Ren/Ben himself as a character. As so many have eloquently described, this is a complex character that commits atrocities, but is shown to be a victim of immense abuse and trauma that was failed by everyone in his family when he needed them most. This is a character that, had he been able to have the full and well-written redemption arc that he deserved, would have had an extremely moving story of how toxic masculinity and masculinist ideology is destroying boys and men by keeping them from being full people who can express all of their emotions, be vulnerable, and be open to love and connection. Reylo resonates so much with me not because it is about Rey supposedly doing all the work to change Kylo in some sort of toxic, co-dependent way, but because Rey and Kylo/Ben were always equals to each other. They both pushed each other to be better, more whole people. The wonderful work that folks have put into analyzing the mythology behind the feminine and masculine symbolism in TFA and TLJ (again, to clarify, "masculine" and "feminine" being culturally defined terms), and even the more obvious original goal of the sequel trilogy for the force to finally be balanced by Rey and Ben themselves becoming balanced between dark and light all relate to these gender issues. Balancing the dark and light sides of the force is also about balancing the "masculine" and "feminine" aspects within themselves.

This is a beautiful message that has so many real world implications. In our world, for lack of a better term, everything "feminine" is basically shat on. Patriarchy hates anything "feminine." This is how sexism plays out, but it also has to do with the ideologies that we believe in, down to our basic understandings of empathy and whether or not people have inherent value. The world would certainly be a better place if the "masculine" and "feminine" were better balanced, specifically if "feminine," and feminist, ideologies were more valued. This is what makes TROS feel like a stab directly in the heart. This was a trilogy that clearly did have feminist messages, regardless of DLF's bullshitting about Star Wars being "for everyone." Star Wars has always been progressive, the original trilogy is about rebels taking on fascists for god's sake. DLF's pandering to the most toxic part of the fandom for TROS is therefore representative of a much larger cultural, social, and political battle that is going on around the world right now. We are at a turning point for humanity in which we are starting to face the devastation that has occurred due to masculinist ideologies being the most highly regarded and utilized by those in power, but those in power are also trying to maintain their power by strongly reasserting those ideologies. So I would argue that this is not just about one movie that I and many other people didn't like. This movie is a small representation of a much larger battle that we're fighting.

Now, that reassertion of masculinist ideology that was the stabbing in the heart of watching TROS has made me super, duper depressed for the past week or so because, as others have pointed out, it communicated to me that no matter how hard we fight, the white supremacist hetero-patriarchy will reassert itself and win in the end. It even re-triggered the pain I've felt over the past few years since our current president came into office in the U.S. However, as I near the end of this long treatise I would like to share the stories that gave me hope over these past few days. I re-watched The Lego Movie 2 the other day, and that story gave me hope. The "bad guy" in that story is a literal embodiment of toxic masculinity/masculinist ideology, and it ends with the male hero realizing that he doesn't need to sacrifice his humanity and connections to other people to be a hero, or even just to be a man. How to Train Your Dragon 3 also told a story about a male hero/leader that rejects masculinist ideology. Additionally, I was given hope by Rian's amazing movie, Knives Out, which I went to see solely because people on Tumblr recommended it (thank you folks!). Rian had a clear theme and vision for this story that was about exposing and dissecting what I would call "toxic whiteness," and what it does to a family and those around them. And lastly, I saw Greta Gerwig's incredible adaptation of Little Women today, and that gave me hope because one of its main themes is about the struggle that (cis, heterosexual) women have in asserting themselves as full humans with talents, dreams and goals for their lives outside of being in romantic relationships, but also wanting to have romantic relationships at the same time. As has been said by so many, "STRONG" WOMEN CAN FALL IN LOVE AND HAVE ROMANTIC/SEXUAL RELATIONSHIPS. Feminism is about giving all people the chance to be fully human, and for heterosexual women that includes being able to have a relationship with a man and still be valued and respected for everything that we are outside of that relationship. The above mentioned stories, and others (She-Ra, Dragon Prince, AtLA & Legend of Korra, I'm sure there are others) give me hope that there are creators out there that are communicating feminist themes, even in big-budget movies that lots of people go to see. We need more of this. Tied to this is that THE HEROINE'S JOURNEY OF THE SEQUEL TRILOGY SHOULD HAVE BEEN WRITTEN/DIRECTED BY A WOMAN/WOMEN. Folks, we need the opportunities to tell our own stories. All of the diverse folks out there, if you are a creator, please keep on creating! We need you out there and we value all of the beautiful, integral work that you do!

So in sum, I'm not going to let what happened with TROS ruin my love of Star Wars or of the sequel trilogy. The story belongs to the fans now, and there are so many of us out there to care for it. You better be sure that I will never stop speaking up about how wronged we were by TROS, that is the hill I will die on. But I am not giving up hope and I hope that you will also join me in not giving up hope. As Poe stated so well in TLJ (with one minor adjustment), "We are the spark that will light the fire that will burn the [patriarchy] down." End of treatise.

[ariderofcomets]

Descrying love.

PART II-

The incestous relationship between Cersei and Jaime Lannister has, in my eyes, always been problematic. Setting aside the fact that it involves incest (honestly, some could argue that's reason enough), there are so many other reasons why it could never work out between them, and the progression of the story is leading us to just that. 

First, a note on Cersei Lannister. 

I had begun to dislike Cersei from the very start of the series, but my feelings were fixated after I read A feast for crows. It didn't, of course, marr my enjoyment of her POV chapters. To me, reading some parts of her story involved equal portions of amusement and disbelief. Her internal monologue, laced with malice for almost everyone she encountered, was at times, cringeworthy. Sometimes, I had to pause, put my book aside, and dwell on just how far she went with her delusions and what that meant for her.  

Some might say that her paranoia was justified. Isn't she facing imminent death at the hands of a 'valonqar'? Doesn't she have proof to support the fact that the Tyrells were, in fact, the perpetrators in her son's death? Yes, I will not be the one to deny that. Cersei Lannister is not the first person to do everything in her literal power to thwart a fate that has been prophesized to be unfortunate, to lash out blindly with a club as if to deter her destiny. But it has caused harm to so many innocent people, and that has never bothered her, not in the least. In her fits of rage, she is sometimes callously cruel, even to those she loves (and that list is shorter than her temper). 

By Dance with Dragons, of course, I had begun to pity her, because yes, no matter how horrible a person she was, she deserved none of what the insurgent, radically insane Faith Militant doled out for her (the same Faith Militant, which, in a move that she believed was a stroke of genius, she allowed to be freed from their restrictions), but I am afraid that was all the empathy that I could muster. 

To Cersei, the only person worth protecting in Westeros is herself, and her children. She wants them to bend to her will, because only she knows what's right for them. She may have been trying to protect Tommen, with his best interests at heart, but unarguably, the two do not have the best mother-child relationship. As a matter of fact, Cersei did not have that with any of her children. In Joffrey, she encouraged the streak of blatant brutality, in fact even stating that her son's willfulness was his best quality as it would keep him out of trouble in the treacherous mire that King's Landing was. I have no doubt that she was trying to be a good mother, but I also suspect she was anything but that in Tommen's eyes. 

In her defense, one can also add that she believed that she was shielding her children from the worst effects of the waves of war that crashed around them. In some instances, however, it seemed to me that she was using the protection of her children as an excuse to assuage, or even absolve herself of blame in the face of the hair raising atrocities that she subjected some of her people to (Blue bard and Falyse). Here is what she thinks after she torments the Blue Bard into admitting to a lie that would aid in framing Margaery-

Getting the truth was wearisome work, and she dreaded what must follow. I must be strong. What I must do for Tommen and the realm. It was a pity that Maggy the Frog was dead. Piss on your prophecy, old woman. The little queen may be younger than I, but she has never been more beautiful, and soon she will be dead. 

In this statement, Cersei imputes all that she does to Tommen and the realm, and then, in the very same stream of thought, goes on to dwell over Maggy the Frog and her own motives for wanting Margaery dead. So while Cersei may tell herself all she wants that all of her actions benefit her children alone, they are, in the end, rooted in her own desire to put the stopper on the prophecy that predicts her ousting from power and death. 

Cersei is also a woman who believes that everyone takes her opinions with a pinch of salt because of her gender. Her entire life, she has seen firsthand the yawning black chasm of differentiation that exists between women and men in Westeros. Her father had always sought to sell her like a commodity to men she never wished to marry, even as her twin was allowed to tread the path to glory. This is, of course, the very picture of injustice, one that exists in the entirety of Westeros. All of our fortuitous female characters, from Sansa to Arya to Brienne to Asha have been subjected to this form of discrimination.

But how did Cersei choose to react to this inequity? By believing that she had been cursed by being born into the wrong gender, that women were weak and vapid and soft and could only wield power with the 'charms of their sex' and what was 'between their legs'. She eyes most women with distaste and contempt and distances herself from every frail thing that she has associated with femininity and looks to find 'masculine traits' within her, traits which will help her manage the realm as efficiently as her father. Womanly emotions are viewed as nugatory by her, and even when she is queen, she does not do much to alleviate the condition of women in Westeros, botherations not very different from her own. Instead of shunning the flawed paradigm of women that so many men in Westeros hold, she believes it, and begrudges her fate for having been born a woman.

Okay, so Cersei Lannister may not be my absolute favorite character, but seeing as how everything in her life is in a jumbled disarray, and how she is treading the fine line between suspicion and full blown paranoia, she deserves to be freed from any other exigency that weighs her down, including destructive or toxic relationships in her life, which is what her brother needs too, maybe more than her. Where best to start but with each other?

When one person truly loves another person, they will go out of their way to ensure that they do all they can to ease any suffering the other person may be enduring, even if they have to put aside their own sorrows for the moment or if not that, at least listen to the other person and then relay their own difficulties. Even listening to someone talk about their worries can go a long way in making them feel better. 

Now, when Jaime came back from Riverrun, miamed both physically and mentally, he practically rushed to Cersei, and didn't even wait for her to consent before proceeding to make love to her. He knew that Cersei had lost a son. Albeit a monstrous one, she was still his sister, and he should have been more understanding of the circumstances.

And Cersei? She was repulsed by his stump. Instead of bolstering his already frangible self esteem, she went on to reveal her own intentions and plans to him, hoping to rope him in, all for her own benefit, even going so far as to asking him to quit the Kingsguard (an institution she had once asked him to join for her own purposes). And when he refused? 

Was it your hand they hacked off in Harrenhal, or your manhood? 

You great golden fool. He's lied to you a thousand times, and so have I. 

Oh, an angry cripple. How terrifying. A pity Lord Tywin Lannister never had a son. I could have been the heir he wanted, but I lacked a cock. 

It is clear from their interaction that Cersei was thinking only of herself and of the problems that she would soon encounter, not sparing much thought for her brother's conflict and pain. 

While I do not doubt that Cersei and Jaime loved each other as they grew up together in Casterly Rock, I do know that this love must have begun purely as the love that brothers and sisters share, and in their case, a deeper bond of twinhood. This was warped by their thoughtless experimentations later, and as the years advanced and they continued to attach a sexual relationship to it, they twisted the sinuous connection even further. 

I do not think they were ever in love. Cersei Lannister surely wasn't. Even as a little girl, she had dreamed of marrying Rhaegar, dreamed of soaring into the gaping skies with him upon the scaly back of a majestic dragon. Her love for her brother, which had begun as platonic, was only sexual for sating her own needs. For lack of a better analogy, his role in her life could be likened to a bloodrider. 

I name you ko, and ask your oath, that you should live and die as blood of my blood, riding at my side to keep me safe from harm. 

-An oath asked of a bloodrider

They were the khal's brothers, his shadows, his fiercest friends. "Blood of my blood," Drogo called them, and so it was; they shared a single life.

In my opinion, this is pretty much how Cersei views Jaime. A man who is hers, to protect her, live and die for her and vanquish her enemies. She loved him, and he pleasured her, but she was never in love with him. She believed that he was, wholeheartedly, and that she deserved to use that to her advantage, which was what she did most of their life (Prominent instances that stand out to me- Persuading him to join the Kingsguard and asking him to miam or kill Arya on sight if he found her in Darry). When he began to demonstrate his heedlessness to her wishes, she began to regard him differently- He had changed, and he was a thorn in her side. He was supposed to assist her in whatever she did, and if he couldn't do that, she had to send him away. 

As for Jaime, he had painted an entirely inaccurate picture of the relationship in his mind. In his ideally rose tinted imaginings, he was the Warrior and Cersei was the Maiden. He believed he loved her for her uproarious flames, but he never gazed deep enough to see the crucible of untamed wildfire. She believed she loved him for his undying fierceness, but never quite took the time to see the contrariant idealism and carefully buried trauma shoved away inside. Neither of them knew or understood the other entirely, they 'loved' each other because they had projected the image of who they believed each other to be on to themselves. The curtains were flung from their eyes in the gales of the personal tribulations that they had to face (particularly for Jaime, who was forced to re-evaluate his whole life). 

After discovering that his sister hadn't been as loyal to him as he had to her, and encountering aspects of her that he didn't knew existed, he thinks-

I thought that I was the Warrior and Cersei was the Maid, but all the time she was the Stranger, hiding her true face from my gaze. 

And here is an excerpt from his conversation with Daven which highlights his disillusionment-

"How is Cersei? As beautiful as ever?"

"Radiant." Fickle. "Golden." False as a fool's gold. 

He also dreamed of finding her in bed with Moon Boy and in the very same dream, proceeded to smash her teeth in, which is a very violent form of expression of the dismay in his sub-conscious mind. 

But the one scene that sums his disenchantment up the best is when he throws this letter by Cersei into the fire-

Come at once. Help me. Save me. I need you now as I have never needed you before. I love you. I love you. I love you. Come at once."

When Cersei sends this letter to Jaime, her need is truly dire. Her sending such a letter and Jaime's reaction upon receiving it both reflect exactly what their relationship has come to. 

While Cersei knows that Jaime could not possibly be of any aid to her without his sword hand, she wants him by her side, because isn't that how it has always been? He was meant to protect her. They were meant to die together. He had to come. 

And Jaime? He chose not to go. 

He chooses not to go when the woman he is supposedly in love with needs him the most. 

She has never come to me, he thought, She has always waited, letting me come to her. She gives, but I must ask. 

Could it be attributed to his rage at being betrayed? Possibly. But how long can rage last in the face of truly eternal love, and particularly a loved one in mortal peril? Jaime chose to ignore Cersei's request because he no longer wanted to give up everything for a woman who was, in all probability, only going to require him for that purpose. He was not about to put everything on the line for a woman whose shrouded true face had slowly begun to come into the light. He was a knight of the Kingsguard, entrusted with an important task, and he meant to see it through. He didn't leave, even though he knew it could mean a terrible punishment for Cersei, or even death. 

Jaime had started to discover other priorities in his life, and Cersei had begun to see him for just who he was. Both of them had. How can two completely different people with a set of conflicting beliefs, who don't see eye to eye, and who dream of things that the other could never possibly comprehend, ever summon true love within themselves for each other? Can a woman who has viewed love as a sweet poison ever look beyond to realise what the liberation and wonderment of love truly entails? Love isn't poison. The absence of love is. Can a man who has distorted sibling love and attached a component of lust to it ever see how truly falling in love with someone is like?

I sure hope they can (though in Cersei's case, sadly, it is unlikely) and I also understand that it is implausible so long as they continue to view each other as lovers. 

Theirs isn't a tragic love story. It isn't a love story at all. 

And beautiful, wonderful, Brienne of Tarth deserves her own love story, and I really hope that she finds it with the man she has begun to love. 

Note-Excerpts from the books in italics.

[michaelsmediablog-blog]

Final Blog Post: House of Cards

      House of Cards is a currently running political drama on Netflix. It is poised to enter it’s fifth season in May, 2017. The cast is lead by Kevin Spacey as Frank Underwood, Much like the political environment in the show, House of Cards is a work of art. This can be seen from the very beginning of the opening credits to the end of the most recent season. There is a heavy focus on appearance, public appreciation, and lasting influence. Frank Underwood, the shows main character reminds us of this many times, regularly speaking about power and legacy in his asides (an element that screams classical theater, e.g. Shakespeare's monologues and soliloquies). This focus on influence and the struggle between reality and appearance has been philosophized by countless philosophers, from Plato to Marx to Arendt to Baudrillard.

      “The Marxist approach to culture insists that texts and practices must be analysed in relation to their historical conditions of production” (Storey, 61) Keeping this in mind, House of Cards is being created in a time where the historical conditions of production are largely political so it makes sense that the show would be a strong story about the American political system. The conditions of production are an über-political capitalist system steeped in corruption and uncertainty perhaps more than any other time in American history and the show reflects that very strongly.

      I hypothesized that the shows portrayal of politics and the media may be damaging to people's opinions and views about what can and should be done by people in power in our country. Frank’s portrayal as a “ruthless pragmatist” is abrasive on the surface, and is counterbalanced by many small things he does at certain parts of the story. Frank’s media appearance and his focus on power consumes his life. Every waking moment he is focused on how he can secure a legacy for himself through any means possible. The problem comes when we look at the reason why we like Frank, I personally like Frank because of his intelligence, his drive, and his perfectionism. When we analyze Frank’s quest for power and legacy, we find that he is in fact an immense hypocrite. At multiple moments in the show Frank is condescending, rude, and mean to people who he sees as idiots for going after money instead of legacy and power, under the guise that money is only a means to an end and earning money holds no value over time. Despite his views on this he completely misses the fact that there is quite the same conundrum with an unending quest for power; he believes that his power and legacy will have use or value, endlessly validating his need to inflate his ego. He focuses on the immortality of legacy, missing or ignoring the fact that legacy is not lasting, and that it can be created through good or evil methods.

      The other reason one wants to like Frank is that we have a much more intimate relationship with him than any of the other characters do. His asides provide insight and what feels like an honest view of Frank. While this is in fact his own “honest view,” the appearance/feeling of honesty is what matters. These asides don’t just blur the lines between reality and appearance, it removes it. For Frank, and for the show, appearance IS reality. We justify his manipulation of the media because we are shown the stresses his job and actions cause in his own personal life, despite his manipulation being one of those stressors; we see his reality, almost forcing us to have empathy for him. In fact, if the show only portrayed Frank through his media appearances and his public image we would get a much different view of Frank, we might be less or more approving of his political actions simply due to personal bias and ignorance about what goes on behind the facade. One might find him boring and political, or just outright despise him. Making it feel like Frank trusts you, and making you feel like you trust him back, like he’s your friend, is crucial to his relationship with the viewer and is woven near perfectly into his persona, the manipulation of trust and affection being his primary tool for bending and breaking people and their lives. Not even the viewer knows when they’re being lied to because they’ve been shown that everything he has said is “true”, allowing Frank to tell his lies whenever and to whomever he chooses.

      Frank does everything for his own gain, even things he does not want to do or like doing are done with Frank’s interests at heart. He will abuse people who helped him with no regard to the ramifications simply because of the power he feels he has. His power and appearance are simply a house of cards waiting to collapse until it is finally cemented together and left to collapse from time. Throughout the show, Frank shows an almost childish displeasure towards non permanent things; he insists Edward Meechum stays his personal bodyguard, he shows contempt for the Buddhist monks who came and made then eventually destroyed the sand mandala. Because of this Frank ties and unties his political connections with ease, choosing to ally with whomever may increase his chance at permanency.

      One of the driving factors behind the American political system is the capitalist economy we base it on. Capitalism is by no means a bad thing, but the current economic landscape is very toxic. The rich are now very much in power. Marx believed that the rich being in power served to keep the other classes in conflict with each other. This conflict removes attention from the true goings-on of the rulers, and focuses it on more menial grievances like minimum wage, pay equality between races and genders, etc. Marx believed that this hid the larger scale politics involving corporations and their intent to grasp “power” by having a tight hold on money.

      This connection between power and money is not left out of the show, former president Garrett Walker is a very close friend and business partner with Raymond Tusk, a multi-billionaire who owns nuclear power plants around the world. He uses this influence, his near-monopoly on the power in China is used as leverage to end a military conflict between the United States and China. This is strongly capitalized on by Frank, who sees money as a fake form of power, only useful in making people do what you want for a little, and universally fleeting, unlike a legacy. Frank uses a Chinese businessman’s ties to Democratic action committees to spin a story in the media that ultimately ends in Garrett Walker’s resignation and Frank Underwood taking position as the President of the United States of America.

      Claire Underwood is a very startling representation of a woman in power and in the fourth season we watch as she sheds her husband’s control over her and reminds us that she herself is just as much a strong and power-hungry sociopath as Frank. Claire finally receives the agency she has desired and that she deserves. Although she uses this agency to do arguably terrible things, the fact that she has this agency is something not seen often in the first three seasons. The most notable scene for Claire before the fourth season is perhaps her interview on CNN in season two where a reporter bluntly asked her about her and Frank’s lack of children. This question would absolutely not have been posited to a male and Claire responds with strength. She turns the question and its subsequent prying into Claire’s past abortions, a private topic that she is essentially forced to lie about in order to save face. She uses this lie to expose a military member, now a general, who raped her and to shift the conversation towards her bill about rape in the military and the victims of it. This is a very powerful refusal to go on what the media wants to get attention for, yet we still feel Claire’s pain of being cornered into answering a question on a topic that has no business being asked about by anybody outside perhaps a healthcare environment.

      Although we see this strength in Claire, she uses it in much the wrong way. Because of the oppression and attitudes surrounding her Claire aspires for something that is almost completely ridiculous, to be the First Lady and the Vice President at the same time. Now, this isn’t ridiculous because she is a woman, it is ridiculous because of the immense conflict of interest and the easy target for government overreach accusations. This use of Claire as a strong character, Frank’s Lady Macbeth finally sharing the stage is very important to the representation that women can have and want power in the same way men do, and although Claire is an awful and powerful person, she struggles much the same way that many other women do under the attempted control from men.

      Because of the “reality” of this television show, the fact that it’s fully contained world almost completely mimics our own makes us think about these hyperbolic representations and consider that maybe some of them aren’t so hyperbolic. It creates worry, or, based on the writings of Zizek (Storey, 112), it illustrates the worry that we already hold in our mind, the worry that is in fact, our reality. This worry has grown exponentially this past year, from the rhetoric spewed by then-presidential-candidate Donald Trump, to the actions and rhetoric still spewed by him and his close allies after he won the presidency. His entire presidency so far has felt like a television show, that is why satire of his characters is so strong it doesn’t even need to be accurate, the worry people have is enough to make the satire all too real. Our reality has become a melding of our dream realities and real life, a personification of our fear for the outcome of our country and the hope that President Trump may at some point not play into our nightmarish views of him and his scary and isolating ideals.

      I believe that my hypothesis was in fact wrong. I believe this kind of representation of power and backroom dealings in fact brings awareness and discomfort to the people who watch it. We watch it not because we agree with Frank or his ideals and practices, but because we have an obsession with triumph. History has been controlled by the powerful and always will be. The triumph over history and truth itself is an immense position of power and many people may have a subconscious desire to have that sort of respect. Admiration of them is not necessary if a leader is strong enough to keep your country looking strong. I think that being powerful enough to have such a strong disregard for public opinion, to the point where you can create and lie about public opinion is enticing. Everyone wants to feel like they have created their own identity and have control over it, and absolute power seems like the ultimate form of control, no matter what history has proven to be true.

“Democracy is so overrated.” -Frank Underwood

“The road to power is filled with hypocrisy, and casualties” -Frank Underwood

References:

House of Cards - Willimon, Beau. “House of Cards.” House of Cards, Netflix, www.netflix.com/title/70178217.

Cultural Theory and Popular Culture - Storey, John. Cultural theory and popular culture: an introduction. Harlow, Pearson, 2015.

[brentrogers]

Podcast: Male Survivors of Sexual Assault and Abuse



Did you know one in six males are sexually assaulted before their 18th birthday? Unfortunately, many victims are reluctant to come forward due to cultural conditioning. In today’s podcast, Gabe speaks with two psychologists about this very common but somewhat taboo issue. They tackle the prevalent myths surrounding male sexual assault and discuss why so many victims suffer in secrecy.

What can be done? Where can survivors reach out for help? Join us for an in-depth talk on this very important and under-discussed topic.

SUBSCRIBE & REVIEW

Guest information for ‘Male Sexual Assault’ Podcast Episode

Dr. Joan Cook is a clinical psychologist and Associate Professor in the Yale School of Medicine, Department of Psychiatry. She has over 150 scientific publications in the areas of traumatic stress, geriatric mental health and implementation science fields. Dr. Cook has worked clinically with a range of trauma survivors, including combat veterans and former prisoners of war, men and women who have been physically and sexually assaulted in childhood and adulthood, and survivors of the 2001 terrorist attack on the former World Trade Center.  She has served as the principal investigator on seven federally-funded grants, was a member of the American Psychological Association (APA) Guideline Development Panel for the Treatment of PTSD and the 2016 President of APA’s Division of Trauma Psychology. Since October 2015, she has published over 80 op-eds in places like CNN, TIME Ideas, The Washington Post and The Hill.

Dr. Amy Ellis is a licensed clinical psychologist and the Assistant Director of the Trauma Resolution and Integration Program (TRIP) at Nova Southeastern University. TRIP is a university-based community mental health center that provides specialized psychological services to individuals age 18 and above who have been exposed to a traumatic situation and are currently experiencing problems in functioning as a result of the traumatic experience. Dr. Ellis has also developed specific clinical programming focusing on trauma-informed affirmative care for sexual and gender minorities as well as gender-based services focusing on male-identifying individuals at TRIP. Dr. Ellis is involved in a variety of leadership activities within the American Psychological Association (APA), including service as a Consulting Editor for three peer-reviewed journals, Guest Editor for Practice Innovations on a special issue dedicated to the role of evidence-based relationship variables in working with sexual and gender minorities, and she is also the Editor for APA’s Division 29 (Psychotherapy) website.  

About The Psych Central Podcast Host

Gabe Howard is an award-winning writer and speaker who lives with bipolar disorder. He is the author of the popular book, Mental Illness is an Asshole and other Observations, available from Amazon; signed copies are also available directly from the author. To learn more about Gabe, please visit his website, gabehoward.com.

Computer Generated Transcript for ‘Male Sexual Assault’ Episode

Editor’s Note: Please be mindful that this transcript has been computer generated and therefore may contain inaccuracies and grammar errors. Thank you.

Announcer: You’re listening to the Psych Central Podcast, where guest experts in the field of psychology and mental health share thought-provoking information using plain, everyday language. Here’s your host, Gabe Howard.

Gabe Howard: Welcome to this week’s episode of the Psych Central Podcast. Calling into the show today, we have Dr. Amy Ellis and Dr. Joan Cook. Amy is a licensed clinical psychologist and the assistant director of the Trauma Resolution and Integration Program at Nova Southeastern University, and Joan is a clinical psychologist and associate professor in the Yale School of Medicine, Department of Psychiatry. Amy and Joan, welcome to the show.

Dr. Joan Cook: Thank you. Happy to be here.

Dr. Amy Ellis: Thank you.

Gabe Howard: Well, I am very glad to have both of you, because we have a really big topic today, we’re going to be discussing male survivors of sexual abuse and assault. And I’m a little bit embarrassed to admit when we first started putting together this episode, I thought to myself, is this a subject that we need to cover? Is it big enough? Aren’t we already discussing it? And the research that I did and the stuff that I learned from both of you, so thank you very much, is that it’s actually sort of under-discussed and underreported.

Dr. Joan Cook: Absolutely. And thank you, Gabe, for admitting to that. I think a lot of health care providers, a lot of the public and many male survivors themselves adhere to a number of male rape myths. We need to talk in this country about how rape and sexual assault of boys and men not only as possible, but actually occurs at high rates. If I could share with you just a snippet of how frequently it occurs.

Gabe Howard: Yeah, please, please. That is my next question. What are the prevalence rates?

Dr. Joan Cook: Ok. So I think a lot of people don’t know this, but at least one in six boys are sexually abused before their 18th birthday. One in six. And this number rises to one in four men who are sexually abused across their lifespan. That’s too many.

Gabe Howard: Obviously, any number is too many.

Dr. Joan Cook: Absolutely.

Gabe Howard: But that stat blew me away. At the start of my research for this episode, I believed that the number was half a percent, like it was just ridiculously low.

Dr. Joan Cook: Right? And I think that’s because, let’s face it, people don’t report sexual assault. Both men and women don’t tend to report it to law enforcement agencies or to the FBI. We just don’t have good crime statistics on these. Why? Shame, embarrassment, minimization, and people not believing survivors. You know, a lot of the research and the clinical scholarship that we have on sexual abuse, including the development and testing of psychosocial interventions, really focuses on women. And that’s important for sure. Absolutely. But men and boys who experience sexual abuse, they’re out there and they’re largely overlooked. They’re stigmatized or shamed by the public and sometimes by health care professionals. It’s just not acceptable.

Gabe Howard: I also noticed that pop culture covers everything. But this is not a trope in pop culture. We see the sexual assault of women in Law & Order SVU in primetime television week after week and marathons all weekend. But I can’t really think of any pop culture representation of sexual assault, rape, or trauma in pop culture at all. Outside of that one movie from the 70s with the banjo and that’s largely regarded as like a horror movie. And do you think that this plays into the public dismissing sexual assault on men and boys?

Dr. Amy Ellis: Absolutely. So what you’re picking up on is that this really just isn’t represented. We have amazing celebrities that come out like Tyler Perry who disclose sexual abuse. But it’s not often enough and it’s often with a lot of snarky comments that are written, a lot of trolling, a lot of other things. And I think this really speaks to the toxic masculinity that’s prevalent in our society. The idea that men should be able to ward off sexual abuse or they’re quote unquote, not real men. And that’s something that kind of pervades even around more kind of socially correct, politically correct people. It’s still that idea of like grow a set, or just step up, or how could you let this happen? It’s still a lot of victim blaming that I know women face as well. But I think even more so around men, which just signals to us that there’s an issue in terms of how we view masculinity in general as a society.

Gabe Howard: I feel that we should point out that, of course, we’re not contrasting and comparing male to female assault and sexual abuse in any sort of competitive nature. It’s just that we want to make sure that everybody gets the help that we need. And your research has determined that there’s a lot of men that aren’t getting the support that they need. I mean, anybody who is sexually abused or sexually assaulted, raped deserves good care. And the fact that your research has determined that a lot of men are being left out of this conversation is obviously very problematic.

Dr. Joan Cook: I appreciate that very much, Gabe, because sometimes and this is what we’ve heard from male survivors, too. Sometimes when they go to survivor meetings, you know, they are seen as perpetrators instead of survivors of violence themselves. And so they’re not as welcome at the survivor table or some survivor tables. And then even when they go to some providers, providers have said like, you know, it’s not possible that you were assaulted or you must be gay. You must have wanted it. And so all of those myths and stereotypes keep people from getting the help that they need and deserve. And working on their path to healing. And also, like you said, it is not a competition. Everyone deserves this kind of validation and attention and help improving their lives.

Gabe Howard: I could not agree more. Amy and Joan, let’s get into the meat of your research. One of the first questions that I have is what are the differences in prevalence rates and clinical presentations of men and women with sexual assault abuse histories?

Dr. Joan Cook: The rates aren’t vastly different. As I’ve mentioned earlier, it’s one in six men before their 18th birthday and then that number increases to one in four. Women do have higher rates. The CDC estimates that one in three women experience sexual assault or violence in their lifetime. The presentation, the PTSD, the substance abuse, the depression, anxiety, the suicidal ideation seems somewhat similar. Both sets of sexual abuse survivors experience it. It seems to us clinically that there’s some very prominent psychological symptoms that men have that don’t fit neatly into our diagnostic classification system. So oftentimes with men who’ve experienced sexual abuse, we see intense anger and it’s always there and it’s always seething. But it particularly comes out when they’re feeling threatened or betrayed. We see a lot of shame, a lot of feeling damaged and worried about their masculinity. We see quite a bit of sexual dysfunction, including low sex drive, erectile problems. There’s a lot of chronic pain, difficulties with sleeping. And believe it or not, you know, we don’t talk a lot about men who have eating disorders or difficulties, but we see that as well, including some negative body image. One thing also that we don’t talk about and probably, too, because this carries some shame, is that we see higher rates of sexually transmitted infections, increased sexual risk for HIV and higher sexual compulsivity. And so I think when they present to us clinically and if they’re not acknowledging a sexual abuse history and not because of their own shame, though, that could be, it could also be they haven’t been able to acknowledge it or label it accurately themselves and then connect that experience to the symptoms that they’re having, that I think we’re treating them for other difficulties instead of what’s really driving their symptoms. So they’re getting inadequate treatment.

Gabe Howard: What are some of the barriers that men face in disclosing sexual abuse and their sexual assault histories?

Dr. Amy Ellis: Well, I think it goes back to that concept of toxic masculinity. And so there’s a lot of cultural influences. So, you know, men are supposed to be powerful and invulnerable. And there’s this idea that men should always welcome sexual activity. So you’ve kind of got this just societal barrier around people wanting to come forward. And I think also it boils down to the consequences of disclosure. So are people going to regard your sexual orientation, make some sort of assumption that because you were sexually assaulted, or you must have wanted it or it says something about you. It could even just be about the risk factors involved, coming forward and wondering if you’re going to actually face more violence or more discrimination as a result. So there’s a lot of negativity there, a lot to be afraid of in terms of coming forward and that disclosure. Joan had alluded to it earlier as well, if you’re going to your doctor and your doctor also disbelieves in these things, you might be repeatedly getting shot down. And so disclosure just isn’t a safe option. I mean, honestly, it also boils down to a lack of resources or a lack of awareness of certain resources. There’s a few non-profits out there that are dedicated to working with masculine identifying individuals. And you have to know that there is a trauma in order to seek out these resources. A lot of men wouldn’t use the label of I’ve been traumatized. I’ve been sexually abused. They just don’t use that language. So really trying to capture men and their experiences and then having them be aware of what might be out there for them.

Gabe Howard: You spoke a couple of times about some of the myths that people believe about male sexual assault survivors. One of them is their sexual orientation. One of them is whether or not they’re strong. What are some other common myths regarding the sexual assault of boys and men?

Dr. Joan Cook: The first, and one of the largest, is the myth that boys and men can’t be forced to have sex against their will. And the truth is, the fact is, is that any individual can be forced to have sex against their will. If someone doesn’t want to have sex or is not able to give fully informed consent, then they’re being forced into unwanted sexual activity. Another huge one is that men who have an erection when assaulted must have wanted it or they must have enjoyed it. And the truth is that many, if not all the men that we work with have experienced unwanted or unintentional arousal during a sexual assault. Just because a man gets an erection in a painful, traumatic experience does not mean they want it. And that kind of arousal from abuse can be confusing for survivors. But what Amy and I say to the people that we work with, and the people that are participating in our large research study, is that like our heart beat or shallow breathing, physiological reactions occur like erections and they’re outside of our control. And that doesn’t mean that you brought it on. There are others, too. We could go on and on. Sadly, there’s many. One that we were reminded recently talking to one of the male survivors who lead these peer led interventions that we have is that if you are abused by a woman, the myth is that you should welcome that. So, you know, hooray for you. And the truth is, no, you should not welcome that at all. So people believe that if an older woman abuses a younger man, that should be considered a good thing. And it’s certainly not. It can have devastating consequences.

Gabe Howard: And we’ve seen this play out nationally more than once where a teacher will sexually assault a teenager. You know, a 12, 13, 14 year old and an adult woman is sexually taking advantage of that person. And we hear the jokes. They’re very common. And I remember this portrayal on South Park where all of the police officers were saying nice and giving the kid five and

Dr. Amy Ellis: Oh, yes.

Gabe Howard: The kid was traumatized. And to South Park’s credit, which I never thought I’d be saying on the show,

Dr. Joan Cook: [Laughter]

Gabe Howard: They were showing how stupid that is. The young boy was portrayed as traumatized. The teacher was portrayed as an abuser, and nobody wanted to do anything about it except for the young boy’s parents. And how ridiculous that looked. Again, very odd that I would bring up South Park in this space. But I do think that they did a good job showing how ridiculous it is that we’re OK with an adult having sex with a child and we all want to give people high fives.

Dr. Amy Ellis: Yeah. It goes right back to those barriers because if you see that happening around you, then why are you going to step forward and disclose? There is a lot to be fearful of. And to be invalidated about.

Gabe Howard: I completely agree with that. Especially for trauma, because sometimes we don’t know how we feel about traumas. We feel that something is wrong. But if the people that we trust the most are praising us, that can be very confusing, right? If the older adults in our lives are like, yeah, that’s great way to go. And you’re like, I feel badly about this, but that’s not what I’m hearing from the people in my life whom I trust.

Dr. Amy Ellis: Absolutely. And so really, family support, peer support, those are actually protective factors. So even when a child is sexually abused, knowing that they have their parents that they can turn to or peers who will be receptive or even school officials who will hear that and validate those experiences, that actually kind of staves off some of the negative consequences of traumatization. And so it really just speaks to the power of being believed. One of the most staggering statistics to me is that on average, men take 25 years to disclose their sexual abuse. That’s almost a lifetime, that’s a quarter of a lifetime of

Gabe Howard: Wow.

Dr. Amy Ellis: Keeping that locked up and inside. And yet we know disclosure and having social support are key factors in someone’s recovery and healing.

Gabe Howard: Please correct me if I’m wrong, but in this case, it’s not a matter of being believed because the adults and the authorities may believe you. They just don’t care or they don’t think that it’s anything to be worried about. So that’s two problems. Problem number one is will I be believed? And problem number two is will I be taken seriously? And I imagine that this is what leads to the statistic of it taking 25 years for a male to report, because they want to make sure that they have their own arsenal, their own agency, or maybe that’s how long it took to meet somebody whom they trust enough to be by their side. I would say probably stereotypically a spouse or maybe other male survivors.

Dr. Joan Cook: Amy and I conducted a number of focus groups a few years back with a variety of survivors, different ages, different race and ethnicities, different sexual orientations. And one of the key things people told us was that they wish we could get to boys and men and help prevent this. And if we couldn’t help prevent this horrible event and for some people, it’s not a single event. It’s ongoing or it happens to them once and then they get revictimized again by someone else at a later point in their life. They said, if you can’t help us to prevent this, can you please help us get to boys and men who’ve had this experience? Help us get to them sooner and help them heal from this. And know, they’re not alone. And one way to do that, that Amy and I have really tried to catapult and take it to the next level is giving people the validation and the support through other male survivors, through peer support. That’s what our latest grant is focused on.

Gabe Howard: We’ll be right back after these messages.

Sponsor Message: Hey folks, Gabe here. I host another podcast for Psych Central. It’s called Not Crazy. He hosts Not Crazy with me, Jackie Zimmerman, and it is all about navigating our lives with mental illness and mental health concerns. Listen now at Psych Central.com/NotCrazy or on your favorite podcast player.

Sponsor Message: This episode is sponsored by BetterHelp.com. Secure, convenient, and affordable online counseling. Our counselors are licensed, accredited professionals. Anything you share is confidential. Schedule secure video or phone sessions, plus chat and text with your therapist whenever you feel it’s needed. A month of online therapy often costs less than a single traditional face to face session. Go to BetterHelp.com/PsychCentral and experience seven days of free therapy to see if online counseling is right for you. BetterHelp.com/PsychCentral.

Gabe Howard: We’re back with Dr. Amy Ellis and Dr. Joan Cook discussing male survivors of sexual abuse and assault. Let’s shift gears over to treatment. What are some common treatment themes for male survivors?

Dr. Amy Ellis: First and foremost, when we’re considering treatment, it really starts with defining trauma and traumatization. So as I said, a lot of men do not label their experiences as trauma. That word carries a lot of weight. They seemingly apply it towards combat trauma or an accident and they tend to minimize experiences of unwanted sexual experiences. So just starting with identifying it and then also kind of determining the impact of that on their life, how their trauma has affected their relationships, their work, their symptoms of depression or anxiety, et cetera. As we’re talking about it, it starts to also play into defining and understanding masculinity. So really understanding how someone defines their own masculinity, how they define it in their particular cultural influences and then what their goals are around that. And so debunking these misconceptions or myths about male survivors could be a real focus of treatment. And then honestly, it’s treatment like any other treatment. Working on a lot of the other comorbid symptoms. A lot of men will present with depression and anxiety instead of the typical symptoms that we see in traumatization, post-traumatic stress disorder. And so it just really boils down to focusing on depression, anxiety, how things are playing out in the everyday here and now and tailoring our interventions to make sure that they are considering gender-based principles.

Gabe Howard: I think that people understand post-traumatic stress disorder when it comes to war, because we all acknowledge that war is awful, nobody wants to go to war, we never want to go to war again, it sort of has a good branding message, right? War is bad and it makes you sad. Whereas sexual assault, most people want to have a healthy sex life and they’ve been traumatized sexually. So I imagine that that causes some confusion. I think that it would be very, very difficult to have something that you like hurt you. We are sexual beings. So it’s a desire that most people have. So I can imagine all of those things working together. And then, of course, you take in all of the barriers and misconceptions. I’m starting to get a really good idea of how difficult this can be and how much work that you’ve had to put in to narrow down treatments that work and that men respond to. Is this what you found in your work?

Dr. Amy Ellis: I think you’re hitting it spot on in terms of some of the sexual considerations, you’re nailing down some other treatment themes. A lot of men will come in questioning their sexual orientation or their gender identity because of the experiences that have happened for them. And also exploring how to have a healthy sex life. So sometimes we’ll see sexual compulsivity or hypersexuality. Sometimes we see hyposexuality. So lack of sex drive or difficulties with maintaining an erection, as Joan had said earlier, too. So it is common for male survivors to come in and question and cope with some of these issues on a somewhat regular basis. And part of what helps is having that peer support, knowing, oh, you too. I’m not alone. So I think really the peer based support is what we have found really is aimed at healing.

Gabe Howard: Aside from peer support, which we’ve discussed and going to a therapist, what are some professional and community resources for men with histories of sexual abuse and assault?

Dr. Joan Cook: Well, there are quite a number of professional and community resources. Some of our favorites, there’s a wonderful non-profit organization, been around for at least 25 years. It’s called MaleSurvivor. It’s based out of New York City. It provides online free discussion groups for survivors and family members, chat rooms, a therapist directory. There’s another wonderful organization called MenHealing, which is based out of Utah. And they host weekends of healing, they call them, and they’re sort of retreats where you can go and meet other survivors. And they’re led by professionals. Certainly, within the APA, Amy and I have been very active in Division 56, which is the division of trauma psychology. And on their Web site, we developed free Web based resources for male survivors and for psychologists who are looking to work with male survivors clinically and research wise.

Gabe Howard: To shift gears a little bit along the same lines, what are some resources for family members and friends to help male sexual abuse survivors?

Dr. Joan Cook: On those Web sites, MenHealing and MaleSurvivor, they do have discussion forums and fact sheets that family members can go to and read about and see. I also like the V.A. has what’s called a National Center for PTSD. And on there they have, again, free factsheets, web resources, and they have incredible videos called About Face. And they feature veterans with a range of traumas, combat, military, sexual trauma, etc. And family members talking about the pain that they have experienced and the pathways to their healing. Some of the veterans who have a range of trauma experiences don’t receive the support and care that they deserve and their need. Understandably, their family members don’t understand or if they’re jacked up with their symptoms and they’re angry all the time. Those family members can be traumatized as well. So sometimes it’s not as easy for the veterans to explain themselves to their friends and family members. And it’s not so easy for their family members to come in and talk to a psychologist like me and Amy and receive psycho education and support. So sometimes these videos can be really helpful. So sometimes I will tell the veterans that I work with, ask your family member if they’re willing to sit privately, in the confines of their own home, and watch some of these videos and see some of the family members talk about their experiences. And sometimes it’s a little easier to be more empathetic to someone else than it is to be empathetic to your own loved one.

Gabe Howard: Joan, that is so true, we see that in substance abuse. We see that in mental illness. I am not surprised to hear how powerful peer support is, and I’m not surprised to hear how powerful it is to meet with other people outside of your friends and family to get the support you need, because this is big. This is a big thing. And you, you and Amy, have both taught me so much. Thank you. Thank you for everything. I really, really appreciate it.

Dr. Amy Ellis: Oh, my God thank you. Thank you for giving us this space.

Dr. Joan Cook: Exactly. We are in awe and extremely grateful. Thank you for helping us shed light on this very deserving and marginalized population.

Gabe Howard: Oh, it is my pleasure. Amy, I understand that you and Joan are running a study. Can you give us the details and where to find the study?

Dr. Amy Ellis: Yes, absolutely. We have a large study going on right now where we’re recruiting folks who are male, identifying sexual abuse survivors. And we’re going to be randomizing them to groups of their peers, led by male identifying peers who have gone through like 30 to 40 hours of training. And it’s six one and a half hour sessions that participants can go in to. So check out our Web site. It’s www.PeersForMensHealthStudy.com. We are actively recruiting through 2021 and we will just be constantly running groups over and over and over again as we get more people. And even if you are a professional, there’s our contact information on there, we’re happy to consult, talk, et cetera. If you have people you want to refer to or you just want to check out more about our team and what we’re doing, we’d love to connect with you. Always looking to spread the word and spread education.

Gabe Howard: Thank you so much, Amy. And please share the Web site with anybody you know who may need it. Again, it’s PeersForMensHealthStudy.com. And of course, the show notes will contain the link as well. Thank you all for listening to this week’s episode of the Psych Central Podcast. And remember, you can get one week of free, convenient, affordable, private online counselling anytime, anywhere, simply by visiting to BetterHelp.com/PsychCentral. Also, wherever you downloaded this podcast, please give us as many stars as you feel comfortable with. Use your words. Tell us why you like it. Share us on social media. If you have any questions about the show, you can hit us up at show@PsychCentral.com. Tell us what you like, what you don’t, or what topics you would like to see. We’ll see everybody next week.

Announcer: You’ve been listening to The Psych Central Podcast. Want your audience to be wowed at your next event? Feature an appearance and LIVE RECORDING of the Psych Central Podcast right from your stage! For more details, or to book an event, please email us at show@psychcentral.com. Previous episodes can be found at PsychCentral.com/Show or on your favorite podcast player. Psych Central is the internet’s oldest and largest independent mental health website run by mental health professionals. Overseen by Dr. John Grohol, Psych Central offers trusted resources and quizzes to help answer your questions about mental health, personality, psychotherapy, and more. Please visit us today at PsychCentral.com.  To learn more about our host, Gabe Howard, please visit his website at gabehoward.com. Thank you for listening and please share with your friends, family, and followers.

  Podcast: Male Survivors of Sexual Assault and Abuse syndicated from

[positivepsychologyinterventions]

Podcast: Male Survivors of Sexual Assault and Abuse



Did you know one in six males are sexually assaulted before their 18th birthday? Unfortunately, many victims are reluctant to come forward due to cultural conditioning. In today’s podcast, Gabe speaks with two psychologists about this very common but somewhat taboo issue. They tackle the prevalent myths surrounding male sexual assault and discuss why so many victims suffer in secrecy.

What can be done? Where can survivors reach out for help? Join us for an in-depth talk on this very important and under-discussed topic.

SUBSCRIBE & REVIEW

Guest information for ‘Male Sexual Assault’ Podcast Episode

Dr. Joan Cook is a clinical psychologist and Associate Professor in the Yale School of Medicine, Department of Psychiatry. She has over 150 scientific publications in the areas of traumatic stress, geriatric mental health and implementation science fields. Dr. Cook has worked clinically with a range of trauma survivors, including combat veterans and former prisoners of war, men and women who have been physically and sexually assaulted in childhood and adulthood, and survivors of the 2001 terrorist attack on the former World Trade Center.  She has served as the principal investigator on seven federally-funded grants, was a member of the American Psychological Association (APA) Guideline Development Panel for the Treatment of PTSD and the 2016 President of APA’s Division of Trauma Psychology. Since October 2015, she has published over 80 op-eds in places like CNN, TIME Ideas, The Washington Post and The Hill.

Dr. Amy Ellis is a licensed clinical psychologist and the Assistant Director of the Trauma Resolution and Integration Program (TRIP) at Nova Southeastern University. TRIP is a university-based community mental health center that provides specialized psychological services to individuals age 18 and above who have been exposed to a traumatic situation and are currently experiencing problems in functioning as a result of the traumatic experience. Dr. Ellis has also developed specific clinical programming focusing on trauma-informed affirmative care for sexual and gender minorities as well as gender-based services focusing on male-identifying individuals at TRIP. Dr. Ellis is involved in a variety of leadership activities within the American Psychological Association (APA), including service as a Consulting Editor for three peer-reviewed journals, Guest Editor for Practice Innovations on a special issue dedicated to the role of evidence-based relationship variables in working with sexual and gender minorities, and she is also the Editor for APA’s Division 29 (Psychotherapy) website.  

About The Psych Central Podcast Host

Gabe Howard is an award-winning writer and speaker who lives with bipolar disorder. He is the author of the popular book, Mental Illness is an Asshole and other Observations, available from Amazon; signed copies are also available directly from the author. To learn more about Gabe, please visit his website, gabehoward.com.

Computer Generated Transcript for ‘Male Sexual Assault’ Episode

Editor’s Note: Please be mindful that this transcript has been computer generated and therefore may contain inaccuracies and grammar errors. Thank you.

Announcer: You’re listening to the Psych Central Podcast, where guest experts in the field of psychology and mental health share thought-provoking information using plain, everyday language. Here’s your host, Gabe Howard.

Gabe Howard: Welcome to this week’s episode of the Psych Central Podcast. Calling into the show today, we have Dr. Amy Ellis and Dr. Joan Cook. Amy is a licensed clinical psychologist and the assistant director of the Trauma Resolution and Integration Program at Nova Southeastern University, and Joan is a clinical psychologist and associate professor in the Yale School of Medicine, Department of Psychiatry. Amy and Joan, welcome to the show.

Dr. Joan Cook: Thank you. Happy to be here.

Dr. Amy Ellis: Thank you.

Gabe Howard: Well, I am very glad to have both of you, because we have a really big topic today, we’re going to be discussing male survivors of sexual abuse and assault. And I’m a little bit embarrassed to admit when we first started putting together this episode, I thought to myself, is this a subject that we need to cover? Is it big enough? Aren’t we already discussing it? And the research that I did and the stuff that I learned from both of you, so thank you very much, is that it’s actually sort of under-discussed and underreported.

Dr. Joan Cook: Absolutely. And thank you, Gabe, for admitting to that. I think a lot of health care providers, a lot of the public and many male survivors themselves adhere to a number of male rape myths. We need to talk in this country about how rape and sexual assault of boys and men not only as possible, but actually occurs at high rates. If I could share with you just a snippet of how frequently it occurs.

Gabe Howard: Yeah, please, please. That is my next question. What are the prevalence rates?

Dr. Joan Cook: Ok. So I think a lot of people don’t know this, but at least one in six boys are sexually abused before their 18th birthday. One in six. And this number rises to one in four men who are sexually abused across their lifespan. That’s too many.

Gabe Howard: Obviously, any number is too many.

Dr. Joan Cook: Absolutely.

Gabe Howard: But that stat blew me away. At the start of my research for this episode, I believed that the number was half a percent, like it was just ridiculously low.

Dr. Joan Cook: Right? And I think that’s because, let’s face it, people don’t report sexual assault. Both men and women don’t tend to report it to law enforcement agencies or to the FBI. We just don’t have good crime statistics on these. Why? Shame, embarrassment, minimization, and people not believing survivors. You know, a lot of the research and the clinical scholarship that we have on sexual abuse, including the development and testing of psychosocial interventions, really focuses on women. And that’s important for sure. Absolutely. But men and boys who experience sexual abuse, they’re out there and they’re largely overlooked. They’re stigmatized or shamed by the public and sometimes by health care professionals. It’s just not acceptable.

Gabe Howard: I also noticed that pop culture covers everything. But this is not a trope in pop culture. We see the sexual assault of women in Law & Order SVU in primetime television week after week and marathons all weekend. But I can’t really think of any pop culture representation of sexual assault, rape, or trauma in pop culture at all. Outside of that one movie from the 70s with the banjo and that’s largely regarded as like a horror movie. And do you think that this plays into the public dismissing sexual assault on men and boys?

Dr. Amy Ellis: Absolutely. So what you’re picking up on is that this really just isn’t represented. We have amazing celebrities that come out like Tyler Perry who disclose sexual abuse. But it’s not often enough and it’s often with a lot of snarky comments that are written, a lot of trolling, a lot of other things. And I think this really speaks to the toxic masculinity that’s prevalent in our society. The idea that men should be able to ward off sexual abuse or they’re quote unquote, not real men. And that’s something that kind of pervades even around more kind of socially correct, politically correct people. It’s still that idea of like grow a set, or just step up, or how could you let this happen? It’s still a lot of victim blaming that I know women face as well. But I think even more so around men, which just signals to us that there’s an issue in terms of how we view masculinity in general as a society.

Gabe Howard: I feel that we should point out that, of course, we’re not contrasting and comparing male to female assault and sexual abuse in any sort of competitive nature. It’s just that we want to make sure that everybody gets the help that we need. And your research has determined that there’s a lot of men that aren’t getting the support that they need. I mean, anybody who is sexually abused or sexually assaulted, raped deserves good care. And the fact that your research has determined that a lot of men are being left out of this conversation is obviously very problematic.

Dr. Joan Cook: I appreciate that very much, Gabe, because sometimes and this is what we’ve heard from male survivors, too. Sometimes when they go to survivor meetings, you know, they are seen as perpetrators instead of survivors of violence themselves. And so they’re not as welcome at the survivor table or some survivor tables. And then even when they go to some providers, providers have said like, you know, it’s not possible that you were assaulted or you must be gay. You must have wanted it. And so all of those myths and stereotypes keep people from getting the help that they need and deserve. And working on their path to healing. And also, like you said, it is not a competition. Everyone deserves this kind of validation and attention and help improving their lives.

Gabe Howard: I could not agree more. Amy and Joan, let’s get into the meat of your research. One of the first questions that I have is what are the differences in prevalence rates and clinical presentations of men and women with sexual assault abuse histories?

Dr. Joan Cook: The rates aren’t vastly different. As I’ve mentioned earlier, it’s one in six men before their 18th birthday and then that number increases to one in four. Women do have higher rates. The CDC estimates that one in three women experience sexual assault or violence in their lifetime. The presentation, the PTSD, the substance abuse, the depression, anxiety, the suicidal ideation seems somewhat similar. Both sets of sexual abuse survivors experience it. It seems to us clinically that there’s some very prominent psychological symptoms that men have that don’t fit neatly into our diagnostic classification system. So oftentimes with men who’ve experienced sexual abuse, we see intense anger and it’s always there and it’s always seething. But it particularly comes out when they’re feeling threatened or betrayed. We see a lot of shame, a lot of feeling damaged and worried about their masculinity. We see quite a bit of sexual dysfunction, including low sex drive, erectile problems. There’s a lot of chronic pain, difficulties with sleeping. And believe it or not, you know, we don’t talk a lot about men who have eating disorders or difficulties, but we see that as well, including some negative body image. One thing also that we don’t talk about and probably, too, because this carries some shame, is that we see higher rates of sexually transmitted infections, increased sexual risk for HIV and higher sexual compulsivity. And so I think when they present to us clinically and if they’re not acknowledging a sexual abuse history and not because of their own shame, though, that could be, it could also be they haven’t been able to acknowledge it or label it accurately themselves and then connect that experience to the symptoms that they’re having, that I think we’re treating them for other difficulties instead of what’s really driving their symptoms. So they’re getting inadequate treatment.

Gabe Howard: What are some of the barriers that men face in disclosing sexual abuse and their sexual assault histories?

Dr. Amy Ellis: Well, I think it goes back to that concept of toxic masculinity. And so there’s a lot of cultural influences. So, you know, men are supposed to be powerful and invulnerable. And there’s this idea that men should always welcome sexual activity. So you’ve kind of got this just societal barrier around people wanting to come forward. And I think also it boils down to the consequences of disclosure. So are people going to regard your sexual orientation, make some sort of assumption that because you were sexually assaulted, or you must have wanted it or it says something about you. It could even just be about the risk factors involved, coming forward and wondering if you’re going to actually face more violence or more discrimination as a result. So there’s a lot of negativity there, a lot to be afraid of in terms of coming forward and that disclosure. Joan had alluded to it earlier as well, if you’re going to your doctor and your doctor also disbelieves in these things, you might be repeatedly getting shot down. And so disclosure just isn’t a safe option. I mean, honestly, it also boils down to a lack of resources or a lack of awareness of certain resources. There’s a few non-profits out there that are dedicated to working with masculine identifying individuals. And you have to know that there is a trauma in order to seek out these resources. A lot of men wouldn’t use the label of I’ve been traumatized. I’ve been sexually abused. They just don’t use that language. So really trying to capture men and their experiences and then having them be aware of what might be out there for them.

Gabe Howard: You spoke a couple of times about some of the myths that people believe about male sexual assault survivors. One of them is their sexual orientation. One of them is whether or not they’re strong. What are some other common myths regarding the sexual assault of boys and men?

Dr. Joan Cook: The first, and one of the largest, is the myth that boys and men can’t be forced to have sex against their will. And the truth is, the fact is, is that any individual can be forced to have sex against their will. If someone doesn’t want to have sex or is not able to give fully informed consent, then they’re being forced into unwanted sexual activity. Another huge one is that men who have an erection when assaulted must have wanted it or they must have enjoyed it. And the truth is that many, if not all the men that we work with have experienced unwanted or unintentional arousal during a sexual assault. Just because a man gets an erection in a painful, traumatic experience does not mean they want it. And that kind of arousal from abuse can be confusing for survivors. But what Amy and I say to the people that we work with, and the people that are participating in our large research study, is that like our heart beat or shallow breathing, physiological reactions occur like erections and they’re outside of our control. And that doesn’t mean that you brought it on. There are others, too. We could go on and on. Sadly, there’s many. One that we were reminded recently talking to one of the male survivors who lead these peer led interventions that we have is that if you are abused by a woman, the myth is that you should welcome that. So, you know, hooray for you. And the truth is, no, you should not welcome that at all. So people believe that if an older woman abuses a younger man, that should be considered a good thing. And it’s certainly not. It can have devastating consequences.

Gabe Howard: And we’ve seen this play out nationally more than once where a teacher will sexually assault a teenager. You know, a 12, 13, 14 year old and an adult woman is sexually taking advantage of that person. And we hear the jokes. They’re very common. And I remember this portrayal on South Park where all of the police officers were saying nice and giving the kid five and

Dr. Amy Ellis: Oh, yes.

Gabe Howard: The kid was traumatized. And to South Park’s credit, which I never thought I’d be saying on the show,

Dr. Joan Cook: [Laughter]

Gabe Howard: They were showing how stupid that is. The young boy was portrayed as traumatized. The teacher was portrayed as an abuser, and nobody wanted to do anything about it except for the young boy’s parents. And how ridiculous that looked. Again, very odd that I would bring up South Park in this space. But I do think that they did a good job showing how ridiculous it is that we’re OK with an adult having sex with a child and we all want to give people high fives.

Dr. Amy Ellis: Yeah. It goes right back to those barriers because if you see that happening around you, then why are you going to step forward and disclose? There is a lot to be fearful of. And to be invalidated about.

Gabe Howard: I completely agree with that. Especially for trauma, because sometimes we don’t know how we feel about traumas. We feel that something is wrong. But if the people that we trust the most are praising us, that can be very confusing, right? If the older adults in our lives are like, yeah, that’s great way to go. And you’re like, I feel badly about this, but that’s not what I’m hearing from the people in my life whom I trust.

Dr. Amy Ellis: Absolutely. And so really, family support, peer support, those are actually protective factors. So even when a child is sexually abused, knowing that they have their parents that they can turn to or peers who will be receptive or even school officials who will hear that and validate those experiences, that actually kind of staves off some of the negative consequences of traumatization. And so it really just speaks to the power of being believed. One of the most staggering statistics to me is that on average, men take 25 years to disclose their sexual abuse. That’s almost a lifetime, that’s a quarter of a lifetime of

Gabe Howard: Wow.

Dr. Amy Ellis: Keeping that locked up and inside. And yet we know disclosure and having social support are key factors in someone’s recovery and healing.

Gabe Howard: Please correct me if I’m wrong, but in this case, it’s not a matter of being believed because the adults and the authorities may believe you. They just don’t care or they don’t think that it’s anything to be worried about. So that’s two problems. Problem number one is will I be believed? And problem number two is will I be taken seriously? And I imagine that this is what leads to the statistic of it taking 25 years for a male to report, because they want to make sure that they have their own arsenal, their own agency, or maybe that’s how long it took to meet somebody whom they trust enough to be by their side. I would say probably stereotypically a spouse or maybe other male survivors.

Dr. Joan Cook: Amy and I conducted a number of focus groups a few years back with a variety of survivors, different ages, different race and ethnicities, different sexual orientations. And one of the key things people told us was that they wish we could get to boys and men and help prevent this. And if we couldn’t help prevent this horrible event and for some people, it’s not a single event. It’s ongoing or it happens to them once and then they get revictimized again by someone else at a later point in their life. They said, if you can’t help us to prevent this, can you please help us get to boys and men who’ve had this experience? Help us get to them sooner and help them heal from this. And know, they’re not alone. And one way to do that, that Amy and I have really tried to catapult and take it to the next level is giving people the validation and the support through other male survivors, through peer support. That’s what our latest grant is focused on.

Gabe Howard: We’ll be right back after these messages.

Sponsor Message: Hey folks, Gabe here. I host another podcast for Psych Central. It’s called Not Crazy. He hosts Not Crazy with me, Jackie Zimmerman, and it is all about navigating our lives with mental illness and mental health concerns. Listen now at Psych Central.com/NotCrazy or on your favorite podcast player.

Sponsor Message: This episode is sponsored by BetterHelp.com. Secure, convenient, and affordable online counseling. Our counselors are licensed, accredited professionals. Anything you share is confidential. Schedule secure video or phone sessions, plus chat and text with your therapist whenever you feel it’s needed. A month of online therapy often costs less than a single traditional face to face session. Go to BetterHelp.com/PsychCentral and experience seven days of free therapy to see if online counseling is right for you. BetterHelp.com/PsychCentral.

Gabe Howard: We’re back with Dr. Amy Ellis and Dr. Joan Cook discussing male survivors of sexual abuse and assault. Let’s shift gears over to treatment. What are some common treatment themes for male survivors?

Dr. Amy Ellis: First and foremost, when we’re considering treatment, it really starts with defining trauma and traumatization. So as I said, a lot of men do not label their experiences as trauma. That word carries a lot of weight. They seemingly apply it towards combat trauma or an accident and they tend to minimize experiences of unwanted sexual experiences. So just starting with identifying it and then also kind of determining the impact of that on their life, how their trauma has affected their relationships, their work, their symptoms of depression or anxiety, et cetera. As we’re talking about it, it starts to also play into defining and understanding masculinity. So really understanding how someone defines their own masculinity, how they define it in their particular cultural influences and then what their goals are around that. And so debunking these misconceptions or myths about male survivors could be a real focus of treatment. And then honestly, it’s treatment like any other treatment. Working on a lot of the other comorbid symptoms. A lot of men will present with depression and anxiety instead of the typical symptoms that we see in traumatization, post-traumatic stress disorder. And so it just really boils down to focusing on depression, anxiety, how things are playing out in the everyday here and now and tailoring our interventions to make sure that they are considering gender-based principles.

Gabe Howard: I think that people understand post-traumatic stress disorder when it comes to war, because we all acknowledge that war is awful, nobody wants to go to war, we never want to go to war again, it sort of has a good branding message, right? War is bad and it makes you sad. Whereas sexual assault, most people want to have a healthy sex life and they’ve been traumatized sexually. So I imagine that that causes some confusion. I think that it would be very, very difficult to have something that you like hurt you. We are sexual beings. So it’s a desire that most people have. So I can imagine all of those things working together. And then, of course, you take in all of the barriers and misconceptions. I’m starting to get a really good idea of how difficult this can be and how much work that you’ve had to put in to narrow down treatments that work and that men respond to. Is this what you found in your work?

Dr. Amy Ellis: I think you’re hitting it spot on in terms of some of the sexual considerations, you’re nailing down some other treatment themes. A lot of men will come in questioning their sexual orientation or their gender identity because of the experiences that have happened for them. And also exploring how to have a healthy sex life. So sometimes we’ll see sexual compulsivity or hypersexuality. Sometimes we see hyposexuality. So lack of sex drive or difficulties with maintaining an erection, as Joan had said earlier, too. So it is common for male survivors to come in and question and cope with some of these issues on a somewhat regular basis. And part of what helps is having that peer support, knowing, oh, you too. I’m not alone. So I think really the peer based support is what we have found really is aimed at healing.

Gabe Howard: Aside from peer support, which we’ve discussed and going to a therapist, what are some professional and community resources for men with histories of sexual abuse and assault?

Dr. Joan Cook: Well, there are quite a number of professional and community resources. Some of our favorites, there’s a wonderful non-profit organization, been around for at least 25 years. It’s called MaleSurvivor. It’s based out of New York City. It provides online free discussion groups for survivors and family members, chat rooms, a therapist directory. There’s another wonderful organization called MenHealing, which is based out of Utah. And they host weekends of healing, they call them, and they’re sort of retreats where you can go and meet other survivors. And they’re led by professionals. Certainly, within the APA, Amy and I have been very active in Division 56, which is the division of trauma psychology. And on their Web site, we developed free Web based resources for male survivors and for psychologists who are looking to work with male survivors clinically and research wise.

Gabe Howard: To shift gears a little bit along the same lines, what are some resources for family members and friends to help male sexual abuse survivors?

Dr. Joan Cook: On those Web sites, MenHealing and MaleSurvivor, they do have discussion forums and fact sheets that family members can go to and read about and see. I also like the V.A. has what’s called a National Center for PTSD. And on there they have, again, free factsheets, web resources, and they have incredible videos called About Face. And they feature veterans with a range of traumas, combat, military, sexual trauma, etc. And family members talking about the pain that they have experienced and the pathways to their healing. Some of the veterans who have a range of trauma experiences don’t receive the support and care that they deserve and their need. Understandably, their family members don’t understand or if they’re jacked up with their symptoms and they’re angry all the time. Those family members can be traumatized as well. So sometimes it’s not as easy for the veterans to explain themselves to their friends and family members. And it’s not so easy for their family members to come in and talk to a psychologist like me and Amy and receive psycho education and support. So sometimes these videos can be really helpful. So sometimes I will tell the veterans that I work with, ask your family member if they’re willing to sit privately, in the confines of their own home, and watch some of these videos and see some of the family members talk about their experiences. And sometimes it’s a little easier to be more empathetic to someone else than it is to be empathetic to your own loved one.

Gabe Howard: Joan, that is so true, we see that in substance abuse. We see that in mental illness. I am not surprised to hear how powerful peer support is, and I’m not surprised to hear how powerful it is to meet with other people outside of your friends and family to get the support you need, because this is big. This is a big thing. And you, you and Amy, have both taught me so much. Thank you. Thank you for everything. I really, really appreciate it.

Dr. Amy Ellis: Oh, my God thank you. Thank you for giving us this space.

Dr. Joan Cook: Exactly. We are in awe and extremely grateful. Thank you for helping us shed light on this very deserving and marginalized population.

Gabe Howard: Oh, it is my pleasure. Amy, I understand that you and Joan are running a study. Can you give us the details and where to find the study?

Dr. Amy Ellis: Yes, absolutely. We have a large study going on right now where we’re recruiting folks who are male, identifying sexual abuse survivors. And we’re going to be randomizing them to groups of their peers, led by male identifying peers who have gone through like 30 to 40 hours of training. And it’s six one and a half hour sessions that participants can go in to. So check out our Web site. It’s www.PeersForMensHealthStudy.com. We are actively recruiting through 2021 and we will just be constantly running groups over and over and over again as we get more people. And even if you are a professional, there’s our contact information on there, we’re happy to consult, talk, et cetera. If you have people you want to refer to or you just want to check out more about our team and what we’re doing, we’d love to connect with you. Always looking to spread the word and spread education.

Gabe Howard: Thank you so much, Amy. And please share the Web site with anybody you know who may need it. Again, it’s PeersForMensHealthStudy.com. And of course, the show notes will contain the link as well. Thank you all for listening to this week’s episode of the Psych Central Podcast. And remember, you can get one week of free, convenient, affordable, private online counselling anytime, anywhere, simply by visiting to BetterHelp.com/PsychCentral. Also, wherever you downloaded this podcast, please give us as many stars as you feel comfortable with. Use your words. Tell us why you like it. Share us on social media. If you have any questions about the show, you can hit us up at show@PsychCentral.com. Tell us what you like, what you don’t, or what topics you would like to see. We’ll see everybody next week.

Announcer: You’ve been listening to The Psych Central Podcast. Want your audience to be wowed at your next event? Feature an appearance and LIVE RECORDING of the Psych Central Podcast right from your stage! For more details, or to book an event, please email us at show@psychcentral.com. Previous episodes can be found at PsychCentral.com/Show or on your favorite podcast player. Psych Central is the internet’s oldest and largest independent mental health website run by mental health professionals. Overseen by Dr. John Grohol, Psych Central offers trusted resources and quizzes to help answer your questions about mental health, personality, psychotherapy, and more. Please visit us today at PsychCentral.com.  To learn more about our host, Gabe Howard, please visit his website at gabehoward.com. Thank you for listening and please share with your friends, family, and followers.

  from World of Psychology https://ift.tt/2Q4K3tt via IFTTT

[afearing]

since apparently theres no consequences for delivering unto this website extremely long and good takes i will present to you my hot take on the ace d'escourse, with no sources because I Dont Feel Like It. its more words than is reasonable bc i have been stewing in this for like 4 years and if i dont type it out at some point im going to fucking lose it. no, literally, it’s 3 pages long in word about shit no one cares about anymore. please remember to like and subscribe.

some background on me, i id’d as ace for something like 8 years, from the first time i read the wikipedia page on it back in maybe 2009 or thereabouts. i also id’d as aro for about a year in 2016. that is to say, i have a lot of compassion and understanding for asexual individuals and feel i understand the inclusionist side of the argument pretty well, as i never questioned inclusionism until maybe 2014 or so, when the discourse blew up. i took some time off tumblr because i was so fucking distraught to think that, as i id’d as aroace at the time, that i had to come to terms with not being lgbt. lol i was a little too attached to being ‘gay’ because... fun fact, past dumbass self... you are gay. anyway, i really dont want anyone to feel that i hate them, but after i cooled off a little bit i realized that the exclusionist take on asexuality just makes more sense. hopefully i can explain why clearly enough.

i really believe that what is understood as aphobia is 100% of the time simply a manifestation of our culture’s expectations surrounding sexuality. while “expectations surrounding sexuality” as a very broad topic does indeed cover both the lgbt community and people on the ace spectrum, facing these issues does NOT make a person lgbt. i subscribe to the idea that lgbt is for people targeted directly by homophobia and transphobia. ace issues ARE super important to talk about and the whole inclus/exclus nonsense is entirely because this discourse has been put under the wrong category. im aware that probably most people will not care that much about my opinion on the correct framing of asexual activism as i no longer id as ace but i think this is important for everyone. sexual expectations also weigh on straight individuals, especially women, and i’m going to describe a few examples to try to demonstrate why i believe both that it doesn’t make sense to consider asexuality lgbt as well as why it does make sense to frame it as an issue based mainly in misogyny.

call out post for myself, i use reddit, and i think the r/childfree community is a good example of what i think the framing should be like. although it’s acknowledged that not wanting children has larger social consequences for women, both men and women talk about their issues in the forum, including horrific accounts of reproductive coercion and rape, the intersections with race/being lgbt/ageism (although they could do a LOT better with intersectionality, many posters do touch upon it), profoundly cruel comments made by those who have/want children, difficulty finding an understanding relationship partner, discrimination at work, misunderstandings and even hatred from family and acquaintances, discrimination in healthcare, etc.

i think you can tell where i’m going with this. even though being childfree cuts against the expectations for sexuality in most societies, even though it leads to unfair judgment from others, and even though they face discrimination on the basis of the way they express their sexuality, childfree people do NOT frame parenthood/childfreedom as an axis of oppression, nor do they claim that their lack of desire for children makes them lgbt. it’s not even a question if straight childfree people are straight, because duh? nor if the presence of lgbt childfree people makes the whole community fall under the lgbt umbrella, because it obviously doesn’t.

to drive the point home, the reason why this is NOT an axis of oppression is because parents face a ton of issues as well! they also face reproductive coercion as well as judgment over the number of kids they have, constant scrutiny and moralization over every aspect of their parenthood style, judgment based on parents’ age/wealth/sexuality/marital or dating status/race, housing and employment discrimination, especially for mothers, the government hating poor parents and cutting their benefits, and more i’m sure i’m not thinking of. again, this is due to societal expectations of sexuality. to complete the analogy, people who aren’t ace face their own set of challenges and discrimination. part of homophobia/biphobia is tinged with hatred of our sexual attraction; no one except for straight white men is allowed to really express their sexuality without backlash, and even then there is this shame leading to a lack of proper sex ed and horribly unhealthy understandings of sexual attraction in a large portion of the populace. so calling aphobia an axis of oppression is just not right. and in addition, the large proportion of lgbt aces doesn’t make asexuality lgbt, that’s not how groups work.

some more on what i mean by ‘expectations around sexuality’... in terms of my experience in the US, there is some blueprint in many people’s minds of what a person should be like in terms of sexuality, and that is something like “cishet, abled man, who is neither ace nor aro, who gets laid regularly (but not to excess) starting no later than 18 and ending no later than 28 when he settles down with one cishet abled wife, also neither ace nor aro, who has only had sex with up to three committed boyfriends, and they have precisely two children, approximately two years apart in age, whom the parents can financially and emotionally support to the utmost, because they are also moderately to very well off, and the parents work under traditional gender roles to raise their children as conventionally as possible.” and if you deviate from this script in ANY way that’s viewed with moral panic and scrutiny by someone. and the connection to misogyny is that women are seen as sort of the bastions of sexual morality. we are punished especially harshly for nonconformity.

if you’re poor you’re fucked because either you don’t have kids or you can’t send them off to private schools and feed them fancy organic shit. if you’re lgbt or polyamorous or aro or ace? fucked! if you dare to reproduce as a disabled person, and if your disability impacts your parenthood, especially for women, you’re practically crucified even in liberal circles. if you have too few kids or too many (don’t you know only kids turn out weird? / how can you possibly raise 5 children properly?), if you have too much sex or too little, if you split up the work in your relationship not along gender lines, if you do unconventional things in your parenthood, like accept your trans kids or move a lot or any number of other things, the social judgment rains down like the fires of fucking hell. meaning practically no one can escape it!! huge bonus to the screaming crowd with pitchforks if you’re a person of color or a woman, mega ultra bonus to women of color.

but does that make everyone i just talked about lgbt? no! although every single one of the groups i mentioned is tangentially related through this issue, even though all of them face a lot of horrible problems and discrimination, that does not make those issues inherently lgbt. again, they are tangentially related and i could see a good case for solidarity among many of the groups mentioned; all of them are fighting for greater acceptance of different kinds of relationships, greater acceptance of seeking happiness and being who you are rather than pressuring everyone to conform as much as possible to the LifeScript. but all of those groups are equally related to the lgbt community - that is, tangentially only. just as you can be childfree and straight, a stay-at-home dad and straight, a straight woman of color, so too can you be polyamorous and straight, ace and straight, or aro and straight.

that’s it for my main point. ace and aro people? your lives are hard. i’m not going to downplay it in any way because i know there are a lot of people who actually hate your guts. fuck, i’ve seen people full-on shittalk asexuality, in the internet and real life, in the most blatant of ways, so it’s not just something you can necessarily escape by logging off. not as much so for aro people tbh but i predict as much once the Public gets more wind of your existence. i fully believe that you face a higher risk of sexual assault; discrimination in relationships, housing, and the workplace; horrible comments from everyone who thinks their shitty opinion on your sexuality and love life matters; and I believe you that that hurts and is terrible and that you deserve a place to discuss and provide support.

but. those issues are not exclusive to you. they’re not exclusive to lgbt people, or oppressed people, and so those issues don’t and cannot make you lgbt, nor do they make ace/aro vs. allo an axis of oppression. our communities intersect, yes, considerably, but you are not a subset of lgbt. perhaps our rhetoric can help you, but because straight ace and aro people exist you cannot and should not consider yourselves lgb+. i think you understand that the issues you face are a form of oppression, but they are the result of the toxic and misogynistic sex culture in this society, which, yes, targets lgbt people but also, practically everyone, including groups which are definitively absolutely not inherently lgbt, such as parents, gnc straight people, poc, disabled people, the list goes on.

to conclude, what really converted me to being an ace exclusionist was the example of a straight grey or demi ace. how could you possibly argue that someone who falls in love with the opposite gender only, but with more conditions or less frequently than someone not aspec, is lgb+, can call themselves queer, etc.? exactly what material reality does that person share with a gay or bi person? i think that their issues fall in line with aspec community issues but extremely clearly not at all with lgbt ones. 

the end but post script since i brought up orientation modifiers: perhaps it isn’t my place to say, but i don’t think that microlabels are very healthy and that it would make more sense for the ace community to work on expanding the idea of what sexuality is than to try to create a label to describe every single person’s experience of their sexuality. not that i think you should necessarily kick grey ace people out of the aspec community or that they’re not valid or whatever, but that perhaps it makes more sense to say that some people experience sexual attraction less frequently, and that’s alright. i don’t know.  i spent sophomore year of high school poring over those mogai blogs looking for some new orientation label that would make me go like, oh my god that’s me! and believing that if those labels helped people feel that way they weren’t doing any harm. but what actually finally made me feel like that was expanding my understanding of what attraction is and a better conception of lesbian issues and why i might feel so disconnected from my sexuality and why i might be obsessing over every interaction with a guy looking for signs i was attracted to him but feel super disgusted whenever they exhibited interest in me. i spent so long trying to go like maybe im cupioromantic lithsexual and feeling terrified that that i had such a weird and esoteric sexuality that no one could ever possibly understand enough to be in a relationship with me... like, ok dyke! i know a lot of people have had similar experiences and i don’t think i know a whole ton of people now in college who are still doing that, which makes me think those labels are more harmful than not. 

i guess that’s anecdotal but it’s easier for me to believe that a person could cling to those labels due to internalized homophobia than actually have a new form of sexuality heretofore undiscovered throughout all human history, but that’s just me. and so many of them just sound so unhealthy, like dreadsexual. i really wish people would work on expanding what not being asexual can mean and look like and i dont think there would be this drive to create these labels anymore. even demisexual which i think is probably the most mainstream conditional orientation, i think many people who have never heard of it and are perfectly content not to would describe the way they experience sexuality a similar way and just consider it normal. sexual attraction isn’t necessarily having your nethers set aflame upon first making eye contact with someone, it looks different for every person and it’s alright to just be how you are without making it part of your whole identity.

The End II. this is 2,200 words. if you read this far you’re a fucking mad l- *the academy cuts my mic line while looking directly at the camera like in the office*