#psychotrope

[philoursmars]

Je reviens à mon projet de présenter la plupart de mes 54110 photos (nouveau compte )

2014.  Une journée à Paris

Une étonnante expo au Musée du Quai Branly sur le monde maya.

- les 2 premières : 

- deux rois, l’un mort et l’autre vivant, au jeu de balle  - dossier de trône - Toninà, Chiapas

- lavement anal psychotrope - Jaina, Campeche

- les 2 suivantes : dirigeant au jeu de balle - La Esperanza, Chiapas 

- rongeur-way (alter ego) de chaman - Palenque, Chiapas 

- couteau sacrificiel en obsidienne

- grenouille psychotrope - jatte - Jaina, Campeche

[nemospecific]

What to read next, the book written by a 14 year old in 1955, or the Shadowrun book from 1998? Hmmm…

[ovenproofowl]

bad blood is one hell of an episode. it literally opens with mulder straight-up murdering a regular teenager via stake-through-the-heart and he and scully are like pretty sure the FBI is going to be sued and they're going to be doing some serious jail time. except both of them remember the story differently. scully's story is predictably logical and straight-forward. the killer was drugging his victims before bleeding them out, mimicking a vampire attack by wearing fake fangs (which are proven to be fake. this is crucial. this kid was wearing plastic fangs when mulder stabbed him. in the chest. with a wooden stake.) what is also crucial is that mulder was a victim of this murderer's attack and so he was tripping hard when scully intercepts the killer. mulder - whilst tripping balls - is convinced that the killer has glowing eyes and flew across the room before running out the door. and so - whilst tripping balls - he gives chase and ends up stabbing the kid through the heart with a wooden stake.

and of course this is the x files and so while scully and mulder are arguing over who gave who the hardest time in their percieved series of events, it turns out that mulder was right. the kid was a vampire and the stake didn't actually kill him. the fangs were fake because he was copying the sorts of vampires that you see in books and on tv. he was a real vampire.

and it's not just the kid. there are bunches of vampires, including the sheriff. the whole town are just. vampires. the lot of 'em. and the second they're found out, they just up and leave without a trace.

sometimes the extent to which mulder turns out to be right in this show is borderline ludicrous, it's amazing, I love it. but what was even better was that the biggest point of contention between scully and mulder's stories wasn't even the vampire thing, it was whether or not the sheriff was actually hot.

[gothhabiba]

hi i just saw some of ur posts on anti-psychiatry and then kept reading more on ur blog about what it is. for the most part i agree with what you've said about how capitalism uses psychiatry to designate people who are bad/abnormal and how it aligns itself w/ misogyny, racism, and so on. with that said i think i have some similar concerns/questions as another asker about what this means for those who do/would suffer even in a non-capitalist society, even if we didn't ascribe a specific label to X symptoms. if we are opposed to psychiatry, what are the options for people today who are suffering and want help? are you opposed to psychopharmaceuticals and therapy? i dont mean to ask this in a confrontational/accusatory way, i'm just new to this and genuinely curious

There are a few different parts to your question & so there are a few different angles to approach it from—

are you opposed to psychopharmaceuticals and therapy?

If this means "are anti-psych writers and activists opposed to individuals seeking treatment that they personally find helpful," then, no—a couple posts in my psychiatry tag do clarify this.

If it means "are there anti-psych critiques of psychopharmaceuticals and therapy," then, yes. Keep in mind that I'm not a neurobiologist or otherwise an expert on medications marketed as treatments for mental illnesses, but:

The evidence for the effectiveness of SSRIs in particular is sort of non-existent—even many psychiatrists who promote the biomedical model of mental illness doubt their efficacy, and refer to the "chemical imbalance" theory that enforces their usage as "an outmoded way of thinking" or "a kind of urban legend—never a theory seriously propounded by well-informed psychiatrists." But promoting SSRIs (and corresponding "serotonin deficiency" theory of depression, despite the fact that no solid evidence links depression to low serotonin) is very profitable for pharmaceutical companies. Despite the fact that direct-to-consumer advertisements are nominally regulated in the U.S., the FDA doesn't challenge these claims.

Other psychotropic drugs, such as "antipsychotics" or "antianxiety" medication, shouldn't really be called e.g. "antipsychotics" as if they specifically targeted the biological source of psychosis. No biological cause of any specific psychiatric diagnosis has been found (p. 851, section 5.1). In fact, rather than "act[ing] against neurochemical substrates of disorders or symptoms," these medications "produc[e] altered, drug induced states"—but despite the fact that they "produce global alterations in brain functioning," they are marketed as if they had "specific efficacy in reducing psychotic symptoms." Reactions to these medications that don't have to do with psychosis or anxiety (blunted affect, akathisia) are dismissed as "side effects," as though they don't arise from the same global alteration in brain function that produces the "desirable" antianxiety/antipsychotic effect. This doesn't mean "psychiatric medication turns you into a zombie so you shouldn't take it"—it means that these medications should be marketed honestly, as things that alter brain function as a whole, rather than marketed as if they target specific symptoms in a way that they cannot do, in accordance with a biomedical model of mental illness the accuracy of which has never been substantiated.

Psychiatrised people also point out that meds are used as a tool for furthering and maintaining psychiatrists' control: meds that patients are hesitant about or do not want are pushed on them, while patients who desire medication are "drug-seeking" or trying to take on the role of clinician or something and will routinely be denied care. Psychiatrised people who refuse medications are "noncompliant" and prone to psychiatric incarceration, re-incarceration, or continued/lengthened incarceration.

As for therapy: there are critiques of certain therapies (e.g. CBT, DBT) as unhelpful, status-quo-enforcing, forcing compliance, retraumatising &c. There are also critiques of therapy as representing a capitalist outsourcing of emotional closeness and emotional work away from community systems that people largely don't have in place; therapy as existing within a psychiatric system that constrains how therapists, however well-intentioned, are able to behave (e.g. mandatory reporting laws); psychotherapy forced on psychiatrised people as a matter of state control; therapists as being in a dangerous amount of power over psychiatrised people and being hailed as neutral despite the fact that their emotions and politics can and do get in the way of them being helpful. The wealth divide in terms of access to therapy is also commonly talked about; insurance (in the U.S.) or the NHS (in England) may only pay for pre-formulated group workbook types of therapy such as DBT, while more long-form, free-form, relationship-focused talk therapy may only be accessible to those who can pay 100-something an hour for it.

None of these critiques make it unethical or something for someone to get treatment that they find helpful. It's also worth noting that some of these critiques may be coming from "anti-psych" people who criticise the sources of psychiatric power, and some of them may come from people who think of themselves as advocating for reform of some of the most egregious effects of psychiatric power.

if we are opposed to psychiatry, what are the options for people today who are suffering and want help?

This looks like a few different things at a few different levels. At its most narrow and individual, it involves opting out of and resisting calls for psychiatrisation and involuntary institutionalisation of individuals—not calling the cops on people who are acting strange in public, breaking mandatory reporting laws and guidelines where we think them likely to cause harm. It involves sharing information—information about antipsychiatry critiques of psychiatric institutions, advice about how to manage therapists' and psychiatrists' egos, advice about which psychiatrists to avoid—so that people do not blame themselves if they find their encounters with psychiatry unhelpful or traumatising.

At the most broad, it's the same question as the question of how to build dual power and resist the power of capitalism writ large—building communal structures that present meaningful alternatives to psychiatry as an institution. I think there's much to be learned here from prison abolitionists and from popular movements that seek to protect people from deportation. You might also look into R. D. Laing's Kingsley Hall experiment.

what does this mean for those who would suffer even in a non-capitalist society, even if we didn't ascribe a specific label to X symptoms?

It means that people need access to honest, reliable information about what psychotropic medications do, and the right to chuse whether or not to take these medications without the threat of a psychiatrist pulling a lever that immediately restricts or removes their autonomy. It means that people need to be connected to each other in communities with planned, free resources that ensure that everyone, including severely disabled people whom no one particularly likes as individuals, has access to basic resources. It means that people need to be free to make their own choices regarding their minds and their health, even if other people may view those decisions as disastrous. There is simply no defensible way to revoke people's basic autonomy on the basis of "mental illness" (here I'm not talking about e.g. prison abolitionist rehabilitative justice types of things, which must restrict autonomy to be effective).

Also, I've mostly left the idea of who this would actually be untouched, since my central argument ("psychiatry as it currently exists is part of the biomedical arm of capitalism and the state, and the epistemologies it produces and employs and the power it exerts are thus in the service of capitalism and the state") doesn't really rest on delineating who would and wouldn't suffer from whatever mental differences they have regardless of what society they're in. But it's worth mentioning that the category of "people who are going to suffer (to whatever degree) no matter what" may be narrower than some would think—psychosis, for instance, is sometimes experienced very differently by people in societies that don't stigmatise it. I see people objecting to (their interpretations of) antipsych arguments with things along the lines of "well maybe depression and anxiety are caused by capitalism, but I'm schizophrenic so this doesn't apply to me"—as though hallucinations are perforce more physically "real," more "biological," more "extra-cultural" in nature than something like depression. But the point is that positing a specific neurobiological etiology for any psychiatric diagnosis is unsubstantiated, and that capitalist society affects how every "mental illness" is read and experienced (though no one is arguing that e.g. hallucinations wouldn't always exist in some form).

[fandomshatefatpeople]

Hey so I get that this mainly a blog about media but I have no one fat-positive in my life and I need help. I’ve been fat all my life and now I’m on a mood stabilizer that makes me consistently gain weight and like I’m at the point where even plus size stores don’t carry clothes that fit me. Everyone keeps wanting me off the pills but I need them right now.

I worry I’m doomed to never like how I look again because I won’t be able to wear the clothes I want. And with how many health problems run in my family I just don’t have time for the world to get more accommodating.

I don’t know what to do to or how to be happy

*hugs*

I'm so sorry you're having people fat shaming you in your life. I've personally gained like 100 pounds from different psychotropics over the last 22 years. Some of it was really fast (like when I got put on lithium and gained 50 pounds in 4 months). I've done my fair amount of yoyo dieting as a result and let me tell you please start curating your online presence to feature fat positivity. A lot of the fat positivity of the last decade or so is just... it would make teenage me feel a whole lot better honestly. There's tons of resources like @fatphobiabusters and the tag #fatshion if you want to see other fat people who are wearing whatever they want.

I personally gained a lot of weight with my knee injury 2 years ago and its been very comforting to see so much more in the way of options now.

I'll give you a few tips for shopping. 1) only shop sales and clearance on popular retail sites like torrid or lanebryant. (I've gotten so much cute stuff from Lane Bryant that I don't see in their stores and like everything in their stores is for rich people I swear). 2) Shop with different occassions in mind. Pick one fancy dress for things like weddings and parties or clubbing. Lots of chic cocktail dresses can be dressed up or dressed down depending on your accessories. Get some work outfit staples (black pants or skirts are a must have for everyone but as long as you don't shop impulsively and recklessly at the last minute you should find a few things on sale now that will wow people when you finally debut them) 3) I know its hard to shop online but it can get easier if you do a few things. First of all is know your measurements. Get a measuring tape and measure your chest/bust your hips and your tummy where you want your pants to be. (this totally depends on whether you're looking for like high waisted pants or jeans btw).

Ok that's all I can think of right now but I might do a post that highlights my recent shopping sprees.

mod laina

[fuchinobe]

(1990, Raw Bass, 12 RBASS 003)

[kentuckycaverats]

hey what are your ocs' greatest fears?

[jisatsu-draw]

💊💊💊

[transmutationisms]

i mentioned lying to my doctor to my grandma (horrendous decision btw) and i just got stuck thinking like. in her day if i had disclosed how i feel to a doctor truly and honestly it would result in me being brought to a ward against my will and given electric shocks to “correct” me. something most everyone agrees with as despicable. and yet it doesn’t occur to her at all that if the medical world back then was so violent and wrong about so much that today’s logically could not have gotten rid of all of its problems in the course of less than a century lol

it's honestly interesting imo that you say "most everyone agrees" that forced institutionalisation/treatment are wrong, because like.... these things still happen! fundamentally the medical encounter is not structured to protect patient autonomy or even patient health; it is structured to promote physician authority to enforce social and medical standards of normality and wellness upon the patient's body and mind. there are specific modes of doing so that have declined in popularity (electropuncture, lobotomy [tho it's not true that the latter never occurs anymore either]) but there are others that are on the rise (psychotropic drugs, bariatric surgery). standards for patient consent have certainly changed, but these have never been equally applied (consider the de facto and de jure carveouts for patients who cannot read or speak in the physician's language; who are uninsured in countries w/out universal healthcare or non-citizens in countries with it; or, and this is crucial, who are simply declared to be too sick-insane to act in their own interests and whose consent is therefore explicitly not sought) and the standards are fairly toothless anyway, not to mention incapable of addressing the massive social-economic power differential between physician and patient, and also designed more to protect the physician from legal liability than anything else.

anyway my point is just that violation of patient autonomy is not something that can be fixed by, like, telling doctors to be nicer or care more, and it's not something that's lessening over time because the medical profession as it presently exists is coercive and authoritarian structurally and philosophically. an actually liberatory provision of medicine and health care requires a total paradigm shift (sorry) in terms of how we understand health, patient authority/autonomy, and the valuation of human bodies and lives.

[somecunttookmyurl]

Never considered having to get documentation for taking medication into foreign countries while traveling. Thank you for giving me one more thing to add to my travel checklist: is my medication illegal in this country? Lmao.

most medication will be fine (although you might need documentation if you're taking more than a 1 month supply with you, and regardless it should always be in the original packaging with the pharmacy label. always in hand luggage never checked) but if it's a controlled substance in your country it'll almost certainly need documentation elsewhere

[janmermaid]

💙

[ex-foster]

[emperornorton47]

[hamelinsnightmare]

マネマネサイコトロピック

📱 💚 📱 💚 📱 💚 📱 💚

[butchiful]

I didnt even drink anything alcoholic..? But maybe the coke did make weird things 2my brain at like 11pm when I drank it. Whatever

[monster42069]

Getting a good hit of indica that’s a little stronger than vapes I had last time after I ran out of my indica is Hallelujah Praise The LORD and that kid with ADHD