#removing the stigma from mental illness

[jfashion-confessions]

I don't understand the back and forth between Jirai. As a mentally ill adult with BPD as well as other illnesses. I don't understand trying to claim a slur I wouldn't be called as a western who lives IN the west. No one in the west randomly uses that SLUR because its japanese. English speakers still don't jot their english with random Japanese. English speaker would call me: Crazy, lunatic, unhinged, attention seeking, someone they gotta tiptoe around / walk on eggshells around, mental, a "amber heard", a danger like jodi arias. the list goes on and on... I've heard hurtful and dismissive comments about my mental health or even just heard this about others who are mentally ill, because not everyone knows my status. But my point is the "feed back" and dismissive and belittling comments are always in english. I just find when I see younger folks arguing its a slur they like or they wanna reclaim it doesn't sit right with me. We don't get called those things. We get called ENGLISH words. I've never heard it in my life until the subculture became more popular in the west in 2020/2021. And since probably 2023 I've seen it become more popular. But even still I don't *hear* the word enter normal peoples vocab. I also don't really like calling it a lifestyle, because mental health isn't a lifestyle. It's a condition. I don't want to glamorize mental health, it should be seen just like any other health condition. Just like allergies, or physical illness something else. The difference between education and awareness and glamorizing is awareness gives you better understanding of the disorder. Glamourising makes people wish they were disordered or don't want to seek treatment because thats their "thing". We all struggle and have bad days, some stuff will set us off, sometimes stuff is difficult. But thats not "jirai" to struggle. I like the term "dark girly" as someone who's got bpd and psychosis because it also removes my mental health from the fashion. Dark girly addresses the aesthetic, motifits and beautiful (dark and rich) colors I see. Jirai can't be divorced from its original context, or the sex trafficking or other aspects of its shady history and inevitable trauma it's created. I also don't like negative stereotypes being connected with mental health. I can recognise for japanese young women / women this slur has preduices and that culture is not as open with mental health. It's more judgemental, views it as a private affirm. (and yes, as a western I can see the relatable because I had parents who were in this same conservative mindset of we don't share bad things. Don't talk about your suffering, don't talk to a therapist. Stop! But, I'm an adult now & as a western I have more access to getting help, but also being able to openly speak about my issues and find spaces were I can do so without stigma or judgement. I'm not aware if japan has this so much. Culturally speaking I'm an outsider, so my awareness is ignorant.) For reclaiming the slur too, I find it really strange because the west has a lot of different cultures in it, and i'm sure all of them have their own slurs for mentally unwell people and society beliefs with mental health and how its shameful & yet I don't see westerns grabbing those slurs and being like 'you know what! I'm this too, I'm reclaiming all of this." I just feel like Jirai is being claimed by misguided youngsters. But I really wish the back and forth could stop and I realize I'm fueling the debate to. So I'm sorry.

.

[lol-jackles]

Hello, I’m sorry if this gets a bit long. I’ll try to edit it down once I’m done

So, I’m not saying this to downplay its importance to fans or Jared’s truly wanting to help people, but Jared was also very smart to come out with the Always Keep Fighting campaign, no? I could be talking out of my ass I this, because I wasn’t in the fandom at the time, but as well as being brave to share his anxiety/depression with fans, it also seems smart to share it on his own terms before it could be used against him. I think I’ve read on your blog that actors with MHI are often considered a liability to a production because if they “lose it” or walk off of the project, the higher ups are screwed. But, by Jared volunteering his personal information to the huge SPN fan base (and I assume some amount of press coverage), isn’t this a good way the give himself a bit of insurance? If his bosses are starting to think he looks expendable, they can’t now act on any desire to get rid of him without him or even his fans being able to turn around and call them out for discrimination.

I’m not saying these thoughts were the reason for AKF but do you think Jared had the foresight to sort of protect himself with the campaign as well, or was it all risk for him?.

I’m asking this because I read your recent response on possible reasons Jensen isn’t as sought after as Jared post SPN, despite being the clear favourite of some crew on the show.

Jared must have an amazing reputation to overcome the possible mental health stigma, and the fact that some SPN crew seem to blatantly favour Jensen (Wanek, Phil Segricia, Bib Singer, etc).

On a side note: who on the production crew do you think favoured, or even just backed Jared over Jensen? Or treated them equally even?

Okay, this was a lot. But I’d be interested in seeing your insight on any of this (I know you’ll pick what you would prefer to focus on) because from what I can tell, you really do have a pretty good read on what was likely going on behind the scenes.

I think you’re on the right track because it was also my first gut reaction the moment the Variety article came out. For Jared to come out when his career is still hot is pretty telling, normally actor don’t admit to mental illness until their career is drying up.  It’s one less thing he has to hide and therefore one less leverage others BTS can’t use against or hold over him.   

"I wasn’t in the fandom at the time"

During the early season there were rumors circulating that Jared was always late to the set. My first thought was, "They're setting him up to have a difficult reputation". It's producer tactic 101, put out fake news that the actor is a diva who is always late and if the actor doesn't toe the line, escalate it to "difficult actor" so that the studio is not the bad guy if the actor suddenly leaves. 7 years later we find out that Jared was looking to break his contract, so the producer(s) were preparing to make him the fall guy. Once Jared stayed on, the "late to the set" rumor immediately evaporated.

I bring this up because it ties into our speculation that Jared's decision to out himself for mental illness was at least partly motivated by removing a leverage against him BTS.

It was also the right time because he proved that as the principal lead of the longest continuous genre series in America, he's not a risk because filming schedule was never disrupted, which costs a lot of money. Even when he had a breakdown on set in season 3, he still finished out the season. His subsequent breakdown after season 10 could have derailed that, but he returned for season 11 and again lead the show through it's rating resurgence. Impressed, CBS arrived two years later at his doorstep with a holding deal.

"On a side note: who on the production crew do you think favoured, or even just backed Jared over Jensen?"

My immediate thought was Jeremy Carver. He was not in favor of the season 10 Dean-centric arc that Robert Singer and Jensen were angling for, and even tried to head off their campaign during Comic Con prior to season 9. His wife is currently the showrunner of Walker. There's also writer Adam Glass, I'm not sure why but he just vibed being all about Jared.

ETA: thanks to others' reminder, I would also add Sera Gamble. I can't believe I didn't immediatley thought of her as she's one of my favorite writers.

[creekfiend]

Howdy, so Ive got a questions.

I was one of the lucky few mentally ill kids who didn't have a horrific experience with institutionalization, and there's definitely a lot more going on under the hood of my mind than is on any kind of record that i haven't brought to any sort of doctor for fear that i will be denied any sort of recourse in my own life (Autism, CPTSD and suspected BPD). I say this to let you know I'm being genuine in my questioning despite being behind anon.

I saw a post in which it's stated that mental illness as an industry and field of study is meant to pathologize "normal" reactions to capitalism and systemic tragedies, but like. Capitalism didn't make me autistic, or traumatize me, or neglect me into developing a disorder. I agree wholeheartedly that mental illnesses can be developed in response to circumstances outside of someone's control, but i can't in good conscience sit here, remembering a time when i was sat up in bed at 2 am having a psychotic break, convinced that i was still dreaming and that there was something after me as i sob and convulsed in terror and say in good conscience that people who have to experience that sort of terror every day don't need some sort of means to help them maintain some semblance of a life.

I say this because the posts ive been taking issue with are classing the very concept of psychology as a field of study and medicine as an inherent moral evil on the basis of stigma and ableism being prominent in the field. And while i again, wholeheartedly agree that stigma and ableism colors much of psychology, i can't help but see exactly how much good it COULD do should stigma and ableism be removed completely from the equation. Replace biases and preconceived notions with a basis of compassion and understanding, if you will.

Is this a movement that denounces the entire study of mental health and the treatment of it as degrading and immoral by nature? If so, what does the antipsych movement have in mind as a means of helping those in mental distress without a means to examine and classify different types of mental distress? Am i misunderstanding the gist of these concepts? Is there some sort of contingency to deal with those of us with uglier manifestations of mental health to put it lightly? For those whose mental health would absolutely benefit from being placed somewhere safe with other like-minded people for a time, is there any room for such a thing as a treatment, so long as it's voluntary, like an actual hospital treating an illness instead of a prison housing criminals?

I just. Want to understand, because the understanding I'm currently getting is distressing to me, as i initially thought antipsych as a "treat nuerodivergent people like normal actual people and also abolish the use of mental institutions in their current, oppressive form", as opposed to those who seem to be saying (and please, genuinely, correct me if I'm misinterpreting this) to abolish the study of psychology altogether.

if you read the contents of my tag and you still think that this is a relevant question I don't know what to tell you

like

...

I simply don't im sorry

[comfort-of-creature]

Listen, this is not meant to be anti-recovery or whatever, but just like physical health does not remove value from people, same for mental health. People don’t owe you healthy behaviors to be a valuable person worth keeping safe. This includes, btw, unhealthy people with scary symptoms.

We can hold people accountable for their actions but we also need to ensure that all forms of health and wellness and unhealth and unwellness (I know it’s illness) are taken care of and supported. The goal is harm reduction, not perfection.

And I should add, a KEY point of this (other than these people being people and we should be doing better by each other by default) is that as we’re seeing bills and bills get passed to define how much bodily autonomy you’re allowed (they’re trying really hard for none!), anything you do will eventually get defined as mentally or physically unhealthy and you need to be restrained.

There’s still a lot of shame and stigma and demonization and even punitive, shaming responses towards people with mental illnesses. 10 times so when it’s a demonized disorder or scary disorder or whatever exists. And the focus needs to be on providing support for them. Even if we don’t like them as people. Because they’re still people and people need safe spaces and the less we keep trying to force people to do our idea of recovery before we give them kindness and compassion, the harder it’ll be for anyone who Wants to go through the long, arduous journey of recovery.

Not to mention, what’s beneficial for YOUR recovery might literally drive another person into an early grave if you tried to put it on them. “This isn’t healthy”, “you’re just retraumatizing yourself”, etc. all may very well be true but in the end, you’ll have to pull up your big kid pants and say “their mental health recovery journey is not [like] mine and that’s okay”. Because like, the beautiful thing about minding your own business is that you’re not responsible for everyone’s health.

We can want healthy for others but in lieu of knowing everything in the world about someone’s life journey to recovery, let’s settle for informed consent and harm reduction and genuine, honestly compassionate education.

[xxlovelynovaxx]

Hey, just putting this here since I saw this in the child liberation tag: furthering stigma against an also highly oppressed group to prove your point about childism also isn't okay. Don't be ableist to people with NPD and normalize the idea that the single most acceptable form of abuse in society against those that msot adults don't even view as people is a result of mental illness, of "narcissism" and perpetrated by "narcissists". You recognize how prevalent this abuse is, so maybe recognize that no, 99 percent of the population don't have a serious traumagenic mental illness.

Oh and btw if you think colloquial use of the word is okay because you didn't specifically say "NPD", first of all most people do in fact use the two interchangeably, and second of all how would you feel if "autistic" meant "evil inherently abusive monster" but it was "okay" because "I didn't say autism spectrum disorder!!1"

Like come on if you say "that person is so [literal part of a name of a marginalized identity] in a derogatory way you can't claim that you didn't actually mean that marginalized identity because you just meant someone with these super evilbad TRAITS of the disorder that have nothing to do with the (pop psych misinformation about the) disorder you prommy!!!

Also, NPD stigma directly intersects with child liberation. They have raised the minimum suggested age for cluster B disorder diagnosis because ableist psychiatrists were diagnosing perfectly reasonable reactions to extreme abuse and trauma that children were facing as cluster B disorders because they were 'noncompliant' and basically inconvenient reactions for said adult psych professionals. And instead of, y'know, destigmatizing these literal traumagenic disorders that are just similar collections of reasonable trauma reactions that cause distress and dysfunction to the person experiencing them... they said nope children can't have these at all to 'protect' them. And these are the same people that will laugh at children and call it a social contagion and tiktok misinformation if they self-diagnose with a cluster B disorder...

Not receiving my diagnosis much earlier nearly literally killed me. Receiving it any later (and I received it at 23) WOULD HAVE literally killed me. Like maybe in fact diagnoses should never be nonconsensually applied but children should in fact be able to consent to those diagnoses too and receive effective symptom based treatment in a psych system unrecognizable from our current utterly rotting from the inside out one. Maybe in fact the level of control and removal of autonomy over neurodisabled and mentally ill people is almost the exact same coercion over the "disruptive" and "inconvenient" involved in childism and even the infantilizing "protection" via removal of autonomy to further perpetrate said abuse against us.

Maybe in fact child abuse and abuse of vulnerable disabled adults (this does apply to all disabilities, I'm only focusing on psych ones because of the specific ableism addressed at the beginning of this post) are in fact two sides of the same coin.

anyway sleep deprived angry madpunk pro-child-liberation rant over. that person was probably just misinformed or unaware of the ableism behind the term, hence making my own entirely separate post and not naming them. if they see this, this is partially a vent post anyway and not meant to be an attack on them at all. (also obviously don't fucking harass them if you see the post being referenced and don't go looking for it)

I'm hopefully gonna log off now and get some sleep

[aspd-culture]

aspd culture is : goes into the aspd tag. seems someone claiming house md, (guy whos dxd aspd in the show im pretty sure lol) is actually hyperempathic instead of lacking it and avoids patients due to too much empathy. like ok just avoid the whole boundary pushing / whatever else ok. alright thats enough of that *turns off internet* ive had enough of prosocials damn why do they think the only aspd symptom ever is lack of empathy. god

The amount of people who take *any* ASPD rep - including but not limited to House, this was also EXTREMELY common with Wednesday Addams, who is also diagnosed with ASPD in the show Wednesday - and call it "hyperempathetic autism" is... disgusting honestly. I'm autistic too and I get the desire to have representation from non-infantalized characters, I do, but the erasure of ASPD from the very few sources who intentionally make ASPD representation is not how we handle that.

And, as you mentioned, many people intentionally overlook, ignore, or try to explain away any "bad" behavior (see also: ASPD symptoms) because it pushes against their point.

People are just... so desperate to not admit that anyone they like had ASPD that they will directly ignore and speak over the media's direct acknowledgement of ASPD just so they can see us as monsters and still have permission to like that character.

PSA to prosocials, especially those with no other experience with cluster b treatment:

When the therapist/psychologist/psychiatrist says the character "has antisocial traits" or "is antisocial", that's not a descriptor, nor does it mean they don't like people/avoid interaction with people. That's a medical professional using a different model of discussing a diagnosis with the patient by rephrasing it without the disorder attached. This is super common with ASPD because many pwASPD who are forced into treatment - like House and Wednesday - are resistant to admitting something is "wrong with them", so the professional will use the inital descriptor instead of the entire disorder name. In this case it's "antisocial" with the words personality disorder removed. It's also common to see in media happening for people with BPD, with the character being referred to as "having borderline traits" or "being borderline".

If the professional was referring to them or their traits as "asocial", then it would mean what you guys think it does - they avoid interaction, have a general dislike of socializing/social situations, and generally self-isolate. Antisocial and asocial are not the same, and while you can argue that anyone else in a show calling someone antisocial won't know the difference, their mental health professionals do. Evidently, House and the rest of the cast are also very aware in-canon of mental health, going by the DID episode which was done amazingly well imo. If House knows about Dissociative Identity Disorder, I assure you ASPD is not off of his radar. ASPD is significantly more prevalent than DID, with up to 4% of the US population having ASPD compared to 1% of the population having DID. While there is issues with under-diagnosis, those issues are the case with both disorders, so it's likely that the difference made by that would at most only slightly close the gap between the two. House also researches things purely based on the existence of stigma and/or lack of public knowledge on the subject, and frequently attempts to find out why he thinks and acts the way he does behind the scenes. If you google his symptoms, ASPD would be at least one of the things that comes up. So again, he is not misusing antisocial.

In fact, no one on House, MD would say antisocial where they meant asocial, as they are versed in psychology as a part of dealing with complex cases that have failed repeatedly to be diagnosed. That is shown constantly throughout the show. If you chose 3 episodes at random, I'm willing to bet at least one would show their experience in psychology as one of the team pushes the "it's just mental illness" angle.

All of this is to say that fuck prosocials endless refusal to actually acknowledge ASPD, both in likeable and notably unlikable characters!! Many of them HATE House, yet still can't admit he has ASPD. It's giving ableist, because it is ableist.

Plain text below the cut:

The amount of people who take *any* ASPD rep - including but not limited to House, this was also EXTREMELY common with Wednesday Addams, who is also diagnosed with ASPD in the show Wednesday - and call it "hyperempathetic autism" is... disgusting honestly. I'm autistic too and I get the desire to have representation from non-infantalized characters, I do, but the erasure of ASPD from the very few sources who intentionally make ASPD representation is not how we handle that.

And, as you mentioned, many people intentionally overlook, ignore, or try to explain away any "bad" behavior (see also: ASPD symptoms) because it pushes against their point.

People are just... so desperate to not admit that anyone they like had ASPD that they will directly ignore and speak over the media's direct acknowledgement of ASPD just so they can see us as monsters and still have permission to like that character.

PSA to prosocials, especially those with no other experience with cluster b treatment:

When the therapist/psychologist/psychiatrist says the character "has antisocial traits" or "is antisocial", that's not a descriptor, nor does it mean they don't like people/avoid interaction with people. That's a medical professional using a different model of discussing a diagnosis with the patient by rephrasing it without the disorder attached. This is super common with ASPD because many pwASPD who are forced into treatment - like House and Wednesday - are resistant to admitting something is "wrong with them", so the professional will use the inital descriptor instead of the entire disorder name. In this case it's "antisocial" with the words personality disorder removed. It's also common to see in media happening for people with BPD, with the character being referred to as "having borderline traits" or "being borderline".

If the professional was referring to them or their traits as "asocial", then it would mean what you guys think it does - they avoid interaction, have a general dislike of socializing/social situations, and generally self-isolate. Antisocial and asocial are not the same, and while you can argue that anyone else in a show calling someone antisocial won't know the difference, their mental health professionals do. Evidently, House and the rest of the cast are also very aware in-canon of mental health, going by the DID episode which was done amazingly well imo. If House knows about Dissociative Identity Disorder, I assure you ASPD is not off of his radar. ASPD is significantly more prevalent than DID, with up to 4% of the US population having ASPD compared to 1% of the population having DID. While there is issues with under-diagnosis, those issues are the case with both disorders, so it's likely that the difference made by that would at most only slightly close the gap between the two. House also researches things purely based on the existence of stigma and/or lack of public knowledge on the subject, and frequently attempts to find out why he thinks and acts the way he does behind the scenes. If you google his symptoms, ASPD would be at least one of the things that comes up. So again, he is not misusing antisocial.

In fact, no one on House, MD would say antisocial where they meant asocial, as they are versed in psychology as a part of dealing with complex cases that have failed repeatedly to be diagnosed. That is shown constantly throughout the show. If you chose 3 episodes at random, I'm willing to bet at least one would show their experience in psychology as one of the team pushes the "it's just mental illness" angle.

All of this is to say that fuck prosocials endless refusal to actually acknowledge ASPD, both in likeable and notably unlikable characters!! Many of them HATE House, yet still can't admit he has ASPD. It's giving ableist, because it is ableist.

[bilbobagginsomebabez]

the whole "gangsters don't deserve therapy" b plot is fascinating as an artifact from the transitionary period as talk therapy was popularized.

mental health intervention in the cultural imagination broadly went from being locked up in a mental asylum (scary, harsh, punitive and similar to prison) to emotional support with extra steps-- some guy asks over and over how that makes you feel, you eventually say out loud how it makes you really feel, and then ??? healed. probably a magic therapy laser. [therapy is obviously more than this.] there's nothing particularly special about honesty with a stranger, even if they're professional advice givers, so the next step in this logical progression is people who need/use/like talk therapy are emotional babies while people who need institutionalization are scary/polluted/Dangerous. talk therapy is delegitimized as a medical intervention and is just paid emotional support for extra sensitive people.

it's an excellent example of how criminalization stigma works by making criminalized actions more dangerous and then using that manufactured danger as evidence in support of criminalization. the classic example is drug use. when you make drugs illegal, the user is forced to forge criminal connections and enter dangerous situations and risk exposure to tainted substances in order to use the drug. if they face an emergency when using, they do not contact emergency services out of fear of punishment and more people die. if they want to stop, there is little help to be found and they rarely ask anyway out of fear of getting in trouble, keeping addiction rates high. these dangers are portrayed as inherent to drug use and used as justification for both opposing drug use universally and punishing those who make the mistake of getting caught up with them. but when drugs are legal, users to the store and go home. or a concert idk their itinerary. a safe place to get fucked up, not situations where they need their wits like getting away with a crime. if there is an emergency while using, they call for help and lives are saved. if they want to stop, they seek medical treatment and addiction rates fall astronomically. despite its efficacy, just letting drug users have drugs is seen as obscene, chaos, anarchy, inviting problems.

and then you make a show about a mobster getting talk therapy. and just like giving drugs to an addict, it doesn't make sense. this is a man that is scary/polluted/Dangerous due to his actions and his choices, not an extra sensitive person who needs more emotional support than others to get through the day. he does not deserve the extra emotional support for sensitive people, he deserves to be punished, kept locked up in a room away from normal not dangerous people so whatever makes him dangerous can be identified and forcibly altered. supporting him at all in any way without forced alteration must be dangerous, must be basically helping him better endure the emotional pain of crime and hurting others. like facilitating the harm he does to others by removing the obstacle of emotional difficulties that accompany it.

and this thought process was real enough to the show that it is causing the therapist negative social consequences. her husband and counselor are bullying her into dropping the client, and her new understanding of crime and its causes is alienating her from her more judgemental peers. and tony IS scary, he is predatory and scaring her through this period. he's had her followed, got her date beat up, stole her car, kissed her, and regularly erupts with belligerent tirades before storming out of their session. a very very difficult patient, but not altogether uncommon if the practitioner treats severe and persistent mental illnesses (SPMI). and instead of getting the support from friends and family that a practitioner would normally get wrt treating SPMI in a patient, she is blamed for it. if you didn't want to be treated that way, you shouldn't have taken on an evil dangerous patient and given him the wrong kind of therapy that makes him more dangerous. she can't ask anyone for help without being blamed for needing it.

because tony is so ruthlessly stigmatized, because our punitive culture cannot imagine a path forward without exacting vengeance upon him and claiming their pound of flesh, she and her work are stigmatized by association, her professional boundary as a doctor treating a patient with a right to medical care is is dissolved, and the intervention is made more dangerous through her inability to treat tony the same as any other patient and activate her own support networks in reaction to difficult work accordingly.

still in season 1 so idk how this is gonna pan out, but if it continues on this trend, i think the show probably had a significant impact on people's respect for and understanding of what therapy is and does. i bet the sopranos was to therapy what will and grace was to the gays

[theinnerunderrain]

Just a fragment [Yan!Dottore x Fem!Reader]

Warnings/tags: Yandere themes, brief description of illness, somewhat mentally unstable reader.

-

"My, my. Your nutritional status appears to have improved during the last few weeks."

The form of the blue-haired doctor was partially discernible despite the cloudiness in your vision and the stifling brightness of the frigid chamber. His face was indistinct, but you could clearly make out the way his scarlet hues seemed to flare and stood out as a distinct colour in your field of vision; they reminded you of the red gemstones you used to frequently discover during your youth in Liyue.

"Even still, you still cling to me every week, so it doesn't seem to be getting any better."

Despite the depth of his voice, his laughter had a delicate, airy quality. His lips loosened to display rows of pointed teeth that seemed to be formidable enough to puncture the skin of an average person. Though he didn't seem to enjoy the idea of being compared to a shark very much, you thought his teeth were rather appropriate for his character, even though you felt a little ridiculous for having such thoughts considering the average person wouldn't be so favourable of him.

You could only muster up a weak glare at the man, your lips pursed into a thin line trying to imitate the biggest frown you could muster. Although he knew that you were merely acting pouty.

"No need to glare at me like that, my dear."

He cooed, reaching for the drawer on your left once he was standing in front of you. His gloved fingers glided against the frigid metal surface, and yanked on the drawer handle to pull out a cotton swab drenched in alcohol.

"I greatly value your delightful company, so don't hesitate to drop by whenever you like."

The doctor delicately brushed the wet cotton against your skin as you stretched out your forearm in front of you, watching as goosebumps developed against your flesh at even the slightest contact. He even wondered how long it would take for the effects of a frostbite to kick into your system since your body already became so cool at the slightest touch of a wet cotton, or long it would take for you to become immovable if he was to lock you in the coldest room of his laboratory.

"If the other doctors weren't so incompetent, I wouldn't have to constantly be dragged back here."

You mumbled, watching as the man removed a small syringe from the shelving unit, uncapped the needle, and inserted a tube containing a bright blue substance into the medical equipment. Dottore never went on to any details regarding the formula of the substance, since you knew that he didn't have any particular reason to disclose such information to some random citizen. Yet you wondered why the substance had such a strong smell, you couldn't quite place your fingers on it but it smelt somewhat like cleaning products and a hint of something sweet.

Perhaps it's best you don't know?

"You're making me feel bad, and I thought you would prefer to spend time with me."

The doctor gradually slipped your gown's collar up to your shoulder, displaying your naked neck to his gaze. Your hands gripped into a tight fist as the unidentified substance steadily seeped into your bloodstream, causing your breath to halt as the sharp needle cautiously penetrated through your body. Dottore remained silent, without uttering a word as he worked with the needle with one hand while holding you steady with the other, his crimson eyes swept over your face as if he was observing another daily experiment.

"Such a brave patient."

Dottore mused as he withdrew the needle, swiftly applied cotton to the wound, and then wrapped your neck in yet another layer of bandage. The pain might not be too severe, but it only served as a reminder of the terrible illness that would likely continue to plague you for the rest of your life. It resembles a persistent stigma that serves as a representation of your childhood and your incapacity to achieve your goals the same way that others did.

Dottore gently tucked a few stray hairs behind your eyes as your fingers reached to brush over the small wound. You questioned whether Dottore's assurance that he would take care of you was even sincere. You knew the kind of man he was from rumours and his reputation, yet you couldn't help but feel pulled to him despite the possibility that he was doing more harm than good to your situation.

But in the end, if you didn't believe in yourself, who else could you trust?

Perhaps you were selfish as well for depending on him to be your life's compass.

This scene would have appeared to the untrained eye as a typical exchange between lovers, perhaps even adorable in some ways—a good man taking care of his significant other.

Even though you were aware that his displays of tenderness were anything but endearing, you also understood that his constant caregiving was done solely for his own enjoyment, treating you like a sick toddler who contracted a cold because the child disobeyed her parents' orders. However, given your situation, you had no choice but to let him softly caress you. Nobody was there for you to rely on.

Thus, you are not to blame.

Even if his sentimentality was artificial, even if you are putting yourself in some sort of never-ending cycle, whether it meant suffering or pleasure.

You merely wished to savour this moment for a little bit longer.

Even if it is just a dream.

[impunkster-syndrome]

actually people are allowed to set whatever boundaries they want on their blog. some people have conflicting accessibility needs. a person with visual impairment may need the lights really bright, an autistic person may find this overstimulating & need to go elsewhere. that doesn't make any need any less valid, it just means they need different things. same with people who don't want to interact with systems for whatever reason. some people have anxiety that gets triggered by talking to too many people at once. some people are schizospec & need to stay away from systems because they spark specific delusions (me!). some people have disabilities or mental illnesses that make it impossible to keep track of that many people in one body so they say not to interact so they don't accidentally disrespect anyone. some people have brain injuries or intellectual disabilities that prevent them from even understanding what a system is so they say dni to make their online safe space less confusing or (in some cases) hostile. some people have their own ptsd, & are uncomfortable being around others with severe trauma because it reminds them of their own experiences & triggers them. there are so many reasons why someone may not want to interact with systems to preserve their own well-being. some people have traumatic memories tied to specific pieces of media, so they want to stay away from introjects from said media to avoid being triggered & to avoid disrespecting the introject. it isnt ableism, it's a conflict of needs. nobody is obligated to disclose their reason for not wanting to do something, no means no. & in this case, it's no systems. the best part of tumblr is how customizable it is, with blockable tags & the like. you dont have to interact with people who upset you. they dont want you to interact with them either. just leave each other alone & everyone will be better off. & btw, please tag your posts about DID/OSDD with something to do with DID, OSDD, systems, or plurality so people who have the tags blocked dont get your posts in their feed.

Anon, go fuck yourself. Seriously. I'm not going to tag my fucking existence as a system which is out of my control so others will avoid me. That's on you to protect yourself and avoid systems. My posts about plurality are tagged properly.

Bitch I'm fucking reeling from finding alice in wonderland type of programming at 4 AM. If the fucking existence of people with trauma being around you is triggering, remove yourself from that space. You don't get to go to a tag for people commonly called "mad" which has significant overlap with plurality and trauma and demand people there tag their existence for your comfort. It's a fucking political movement. Deconstruct your comfort ableism dear god.

How do you enforce this offline then? You fucking can't. Expecting people to trigger tag their existence for you contributes to stigma of those conditions and is so fucking entitled.

Guess what! I'm fucking psychotic (reclaimed) and deal with anxiety. That would never, ever make it less ableist for me to do that.

The fucking existence of someone else is not a conflicting need with accessibility. That is entirely on you to use tags and content filtering.

Go fuck yourself, I have every right to be angry and upset with your ableism.

On second read, you don't seem to understand that frequently not all people in a system speak at once. Please go fucking educate yourself. Not all systems cofront or are coconscious.

[tornapartbythorns]

I'm super into body art and I was looking through scarification posts online. For yall that don't know, scarification is when designs are created on your skin, and said skin is peeled off, to create a scar of that design.

An example:

I found a post on reddit about a woman that had scarification done on her chest, and I noticed that she has double masectomy scars. I was hoping that she had her breasts removed for health reasons, but with this day in age, I can't be sure.

I like body modifications myself. I have facial and cartilage piercings, and I have a tattoo on my chest. But any modification that involves removing/slicing body parts DISGUSTS me. This includes conch removals and tongue splitting, and much more. The reddit post made me start to think that "top surgery" just has to be a trendy extreme body modification for girls and women. Body modifications are undoubtedly more acceptable than ever, and the more extreme forms would most likely gain social traction due to lightened stigma and social media. Top surgery cannot be any different. I've met and been around so many girls and women that crave top surgery. It's really no different from when I was in middle school and all the girls wanted nose piercings, and these girls and women talk about top surgery like it's a piercing as well. Its an impulsive decision, that's no big deal to get done and that there's no care of possible physical complications.

Except a piercing is having a needle shoved through your skin. "Top surgery" is a double masectomy; an entire surgical procedure. A piercing can be removed and the site will heal, and it'll leave a faint scar. But your breasts can never grow back. The hasty and apathetic attitude that girls and women carry about having their body parts removed is frightening. How can you care so little about your body to have your healthy *breasts* willingly and ecstatically removed? And how can it possibly be legal for surgeons to remove healthy tissue for no other reason besides "it makes me feel sad :("? I had severe body dysmorphia when I was in high school. It got so severe to the point that I couldn't even look at myself in the mirror, so I do understand where these girls are coming from. I wanted plastic surgery done to make me feel better, too.

But trust me, IT WILL NOT HELP. Giving into your insecurities and pain is not going to help alleviate it. These girls and women need strict counseling to figure out exactly *why* they don't want to be female and why they're so eager to have healthy tissue removed. Listening to your mental illness won't make it go away. I can't understand why trans people don't understand that.

[angiethewitch]

If it’s not too invasive, can I ask what onset was like and what meds and therapies you tried in your recovery? Or any good therapy resources? My best friend was recently diagnosed with schizophrenia and she’s got a lot of anxiety surrounding her situation. She also tends to respond weirdly to meds and so far a lot of things just haven’t worked. She’s a very strong, determined person and I do believe that she’ll be okay and be able to get back to regular life at some point. I just don’t want her to feel hopeless about the current situation.

its hard to describe onset because I actually had childhood onset schizophrenia, which is pretty rare. my psychologist had a hypothesis that whatever big red genetic button in my brain that caused the schizophrenia was triggered by trauma in childhood, as stressors have been observed to cause someone predisposed to schizophrenia to have a psychotic break. so it's not easy to describe because I've grown up with it, it's pretty much all I know, I never even knew I was different until I was older. I mean, all kids have imaginary friends, all kids lie, all kids make up wild stories, so I wasn't to know any different and neither was my family. I was actually discussing this with my older sister and we were like oh okay that behaviour in childhood was a fucking symptom.

the therapy process was first rehab, to get sober and clean, to rule out any alcohol or drug induced psychosis. then I was referred to the community mental health team (CMHT) to find out what exactly was Wrong With Me and after a few months they gave me a diagnosis. then it was on to medication and on a waiting list.

now because the nhs, especially the welsh mental health sector, is chronically underfunded, it took 3 years until i finally got therapy. in the meantime I self referred to a local trauma service, who take on patients for free and i had 2 years of trauma therapy. eventually I got a care coordinator who referred me to the acute psychosis intervention team and I was with them for 3 years. I was discharged this summer.

I cant really tell you much about anything I did in the years prior to psychosis therapy. they kept upping and upping my meds, which also acted as a sedative, and studies have shown they can cause neural degeneration, so those few years are a black hole. I barely remember any of it.

however, CBT didn't work. what really helped me was ACT (acceptance and commitment therapy), DBT and my therapist also thought stoicism would work for me. we did values focused therapy which I found very helpful. in rehab I also had resilience training which was very helpful. from everything I've read about shadow work, its a lot like ACT, but I do not recommend it for your friend (or anyone really but especially if youre inclined to psychosis) without medical supervision.

I wish your friend the best of luck and I get the hopelessness - realising I'll have this illness for life and facing societal stigma was almost too much to bear, on top of the constant cycle of relapse and recover, rinse and repeat. but my therapy taught me that yes i have this illness, but I can live with it. it doesn't need removing, just caring for. its a part of me that deserves compassion and acceptance like every other part of me. tell your friend that, she deserves to know she's not a monster and she still deserves respect and compassion, even from herself.

I wish her the best of luck

[and-then-there-were-n0ne]

Something I’m increasingly sceptical of in modern mental health culture is this constant insistence to open up. Share your story! says every celebrity. Speak out! says every company. [...]

My main concern with this is that Gen Z are very lonely and screen-addicted and so often take this advice and start opening up online. [...] On TikTok #mentalhealth has over 127 billion views; #trauma alone has almost 30 billion.

And no wonder! Not only is there this cultural push to open up, but campaigns and influencers explicitly encourage us to share our problems on social media. Like Kendall Jenner’s #howareyoureally hashtag, encouraging fans to share a video of their mental health story on Instagram. Or #postyourpill, the campaign started by Love Island influencer Dr Alex George urging people to post a photo of their mental health medication every month. “Join me,” he insists, “and take a stand against medication stigma”!

I have many concerns about this. Not because I think Dr Alex has bad intentions; I’m sure he genuinely wants to help. But firstly because his fans are likely very young. We’re talking teens and pre-teens. And he’s sharing this on TikTok, where a third of US users are thought to be 14 or under, and Instagram, where more than a million users are underage. Should we really be pressuring them to “please please please” post their pill and share their mental health problems with strangers?

Then there’s this framing of it as activism. Actually, more than activism—now it’s almost a duty. You need to open up because it helps other people! Maybe, but does it help you? You, a 15 year-old girl, are not responsible for removing the stigma around autism or ADHD. The progressive narrative now also seems to be that if you aren’t opening up about your mental health problems it has to be because of stigma or discrimination. Have we forgotten the word privacy? You don’t have to be ashamed, but you don’t have to share either.

I say this because there are risks to sharing your personal struggles, especially online. Something our current mental health culture seems unable to admit is that being open about your problems comes with problems. Rarely do we talk about the regret of opening up to the wrong people, or too soon before you’ve tried to recover or really understand what’s wrong, or of misrepresenting yourself. 

One major problem with opening up online, for example, is that whatever you share inevitably becomes part of your brand. This, I think, can explain a lot of Gen Z’s current obsession with and confusion around identity. We market ourselves from very young ages and then struggle to rebrand, to integrate our evolving selves into our online image. Once you share something on social media—your anxiety, OCD, gender dysphoria—it’s documented. You’re categorised. Consciously or not, you are more compelled to stick with it. But identities evolve! You are supposed to change! I find it so suffocating how modern culture makes us feel like it’s inauthentic or some sort of moral failure to change who you are or what you believe. Nobody can live up to that! And actually the opposite is true: something is very wrong if you aren’t changing. 

As I see it this is why older generations often chafe at all this oversharing. Not because they can’t relate to adolescent angst or have no compassion for mental illness, but from an understanding that things, people, change. Maybe you are in real emotional pain. But don’t go blasting your gender identity journey all over the internet because someone told you it’s brave. You might not feel that way in six months, a year, six years. Even if you do, you might not want it out there. You might not even remember that you thought you had Tourette’s in your pre-teens. Also: trends change. There may not be the same cultural cachet for sharing your symptoms in the future. People might not be as rewarding or forgiving, so don’t start relying on their validation now.

This is a caution, then. A plea, actually, to the young girls recording their anxiety attacks, documenting their depressed day in the life, introducing their multiple personalities, posing with their mental health pills, to honestly think about this: what if things change for you? What if when you’re 30 you don’t want that video of you crying on your bedroom floor online? Or cleaning your messy depression room? What if you don’t even relate to that person anymore?

And please, ask yourself: is this going to be good for your recovery? Because despite what the mental health industry would have you believe, your anxiety isn’t fixed or inevitable. You could get over your OCD. But you’ll make that much less likely and harder for yourself by posting it all over the internet and publicly building your identity around it first. Maybe you’re socially anxious at 14 but not at 20, but you made it your brand and showed the internet that you struggle to make a phone call and can’t order food. Maybe you desperately want to be seen as confident but you’ve already marketed yourself as anxious and that’s how people treat you. All I’m saying is you might regret reducing yourself to a collection of symptoms. This world can be cruel and unforgiving, and you might one day regret telling it you can’t cope.

Of course I understand sharing helps people feel less alone. I also recognise that social media is a nauseating highlight reel, that everyone is pretending to be perfect and that’s so much pressure—but I don’t think the answer to that is to post all of our personal and vulnerable moments. My answer would be to post less about everything.

Because another thing I want girls to think about is who really benefits here. A good rule of thumb for when something is being pushed this much in modern culture—when you’re hearing the same mantra over and over again like open up—is to think, okay, someone is majorly profiting here, who is it? Sometimes I wonder if this message to open up is so heavily pushed by social media companies like TikTok, Snapchat and Instagram because they benefit when we plaster our problems all over their platforms. [...]

“Check out how you can take care of your mental health on Snapchat and encourage your friends to do the same!” Right, well, firstly you’re never going to take care of your mental health on Snapchat. And Instagram—the place some teens have traced back the desire to kill themselves—is absolutely not #HereForYou. Open up and find “mental health resources on Instagram”! Key words: on Instagram. All this is an attempt to keep you on their platforms. Platforms very often responsible for mental health problems. Please don’t buy it.

I’m not saying don’t tell anyone. Just don’t tell the internet. I mean that sincerely: I wouldn’t even recommend opening up to online therapists. The therapy service BetterHelp has been fined millions for selling users’ mental health data—“rest assured this information will stay private!”—to platforms like Facebook (Meta) and Snapchat. And the more these sites know you are struggling, the more advertisers can categorise you. You’ll get ads for therapy apps and ADHD meds and mental health chatbots and get stuck in a cycle. This is more than a self-fulfilling prophecy. There’s software engineering behind it. [...]

So: open up to people you know and trust. Talk to family and friends. If you aren’t fortunate enough to have those, turn to local communities, support groups, professionals when necessary. But stop opening up on the internet. Stop opening up about everything. Give yourself the chance to change organically; give yourself the option of moving on. Bottom line is I don’t think it’s worth exchanging your deepest emotional struggles for that hit of dopamine. Because Instagram being #HereForYou? Hahaha, please. Open yourself up to friends and family. Close yourself off from these companies.

[alwynslove]

Regarding the recent narcissist post: With all due respect, I'd like to say that narcissists aren't inherently bad. It's a disorder. Even mentally sane people can be horrible even without a diagnosis, professionally given or otherwise. Maybe... stop armchair diagnosing someone with a trauma disorder. I hate Swift as much as the next person on this tag, don't get me wrong, but that term further stigmatizes an already demonized personality disorder which many don't seek help for due to the stigma surrounding it. Furthermore, directly attributing it to a disorder removes responsibility from the individual as, in this day and age, mental illnesses seem to be used to excuse reprehensible actions. This is already getting a bit long but there is an entire tag of people with npd on here that you can scroll through if you want to learn more about this. I'm not sending hate, I'm just pointing it out. Cheers. Hope you have a good day/night/whatever your timezone is.

- an actual narc

Thank you so much for sending this. You are absolutely correct and I’m really sorry because in no way I want to hurt people out there who are just chilling minding their own business. I did add that it was pure speculation so I am not trying to diagnose Taylor with anything but I can see how it must have come across.

[haggishlyhagging]

One of the foremost aims of the antipsychiatry movement, both academic and populist, was to remove the 'stigma' of the labels of madness. As in the feminist critiques, the deconstruction of medicalized madness fundamentally challenges the notion of expert intervention, or the existence of madness itself, for it assumes that madness, like beauty, is in the eye of the (prejudiced) beholder. But is this a justifiable endeavour which will result in the de-institutionalization of those formerly labelled as deviants - or is it principally an academic exercise, which actually results in the removal of services which may be beneficial? Is it actually preventing a revolution in mental health care?

The other question is this: does it change the experience? As I have argued elsewhere, it is a common practice to change the label of a phenomenon or object which has received bad press (Ussher, 1989). The nuclear power station Windscale had its name changed to Sellafield; PMT changed to PMS. With madness there has been a considerable casting off of derogatory labels in the 1980s, with supposedly radical professionals espousing the 'new' labels in a way which purports to empower, rather than disempower, their 'clients' (no longer 'patients', as this denotes ‘illness’). Thus the label 'mental handicap' has been replaced by 'learning difficulties', 'mentally ill' by 'mental health difficulties', 'behavioural disturbance' by 'challenging behaviour' ... the list is endless. But in a very short space of time, these new labels come to be associated with the same stigma, the same denigration of the individual. They may even be more damaging, partly because they disguise the process of derogatory labelling through the apparently 'positive' new label, and also because they allow the experts to look no further for reform than changing the label they use to refer to their clients. Labels are important, and they are certainly powerful, but removing or changing the label may do more to salve the conscience of the professional or the liberal-minded political activist, than it does to serve the needs of the person who is labelled. We need to do more than rename the madness in order to change things. The change to 'mental health problems' rather than 'mental illness' might reduce the stigmatization of those in distress (although this is doubtful, given the research on negative attitudes to madness, whatever its nomenclature). But what it certainly does achieve is a considerable widening of the net of ‘expert care’, for many different professional groupings can claim jurisdiction over ‘mental health’. It is certainly not the sole property of the medical professionals. Renaming may demystify interventions for madness. It may dethrone the reductionist monopolistic medical men. But it empowers a new breed of experts to enter the market place of the mad, to pronounce and pontificate, to profit from despair, profiting from madness through peddling the latest cure: the latest therapy. This is not empowering. It further disempowers and objectifies the ‘mad’.

-Jane Ussher, Women’s Madness: Misogyny or Mental Illness?

[magic-is-something-we-create]

The Millennium Saga Book Three: Goddess-Touched - a formal WIP intro

This is book three of the Millennium Saga! Intros for the first two can be found here: Firebreathers [x] and Echoseers [x].

The waves of the harbor glitter dark in the moonslight, still and quiet. A hum of something that tickles the edge between hearing and feeling thrums through the air, a constant warning. A threat.

I am not alone on the dock where I sit. A pair of wide, void-like eyes gazes up at me from the sallow face just beneath the water’s surface, watching. Waiting. Curiosity of a form alien and uncomfortable to that I’ve always known clouds their eyes like cataracts.

Shadows drip from the underside of my cloak, spilling onto the wood and mixing with the sea. Coating everything they touch with a thick layer of tar, and a thicker layer of intrigue to draw the creature closer.

It is not the first time I’ve met them here, and I know it won’t be the last.

Genre: High fantasy/Steampunk

Target Audience: New Adult/Adult

POV: First person present, Multi-POV

Themes: Anti-Imperialism, trauma and recovery, hope and hopelessness, the stigma surrounding mental illness, the differences between vengeance, atonement, and justice, the separation between faith, religion, and deities, death and life and which one defines humanity more, the effects of leaving the only home you’ve known behind, and the struggle to rebuild after disaster.

Currently drafting at about 16k words.

The ocean has run red.

Three months past, and still none dare to touch the sea where countless ships have been ripped apart by the legends only now rising from the depths. Still none dare to get too close to the blackening scar of Delya, where a hundred thousand souls have yet to find peace. Still none dare to acknowledge the empty dais where the Chosen once stood.

And still none dare to tell the world what happened.

The Archer cannot return home as the waves threaten to swallow them whole. The Wiremaster refuses to even think of it, once he sees the beauty of the desert. The Acrobat still can’t find his balance, and the Artist must face his own impermanence.

The Starsmith races to find a solution to the world’s isolation. The Survivor seeks answers from even the most dangerous of sources. The Detective alone remains in Impalfahr, and alone has the power to tell the world just how little time is left.

The King has disappeared. The Knight is broken. The Matriarch must watch her world crumble again.

The Fourth Eternal is risen.

The ocean has run red.

The ocean has run red, and the Deepfolk will never let the Goddesses forget their part in destruction.

The Millennium Saga Taglist is maintained below the cut here and on the intro for Echoseers!

Ask to be added or removed:

@ladywithalamp​​ ; @lavenderrosewrites​​ ; @47crayons​​ ; @writeblrfantasy​​ ; @ashen-crest​​ ; @dragon-swords-prophecies​​ ; @faithfire​​ ; @midnight-and-his-melodiverse​​ ; @lexiklecksi​​ ; @writingrosesonneptune​​ ; @ren-c-leyn​ ; @doriians​

[mentalhealthinfilm]

Mental Health Representation in Film

Film is one of the biggest pieces of media and it has been for years and seemingly will not be going away any time soon. Since this is such a major media landscape one major thing that films should have is good representation. There are plenty of negative and positive representations of different things in film, but the focus of this will be on the representation of Mental Health in film.Before we can talk about what films have good or bad representation, we must talk about what representation is. Representation in film is how a project decided to depict a commonly marginalized or underrepresented group. An example of poor representation in film would be the Native Americans in Peter Pan (1953) and an example of positive representation would be African communities in Black Panther (2018). Now that there is a basic understanding on representation, I will be talking on an example of negative representation of Mental Illness in film. The 2019 film, Joker, depicts mentally ill people as “betrayed by society, weak, poor or lower class”. An analysis of the film written by Charles Soffel at Marymount University focuses on these major issues with the portrayal of mental illness with a focus on this pushed narrative that mental illness leads to violence which is not true. This idea of negative representation of mental illness in Joker is backed up by a list of films that have bad representations of mental illness made by Comic Book Resources. This list says that “Joker uses Mental Health conditions to justify violence” which is accurate in a way since the film shows that mental health can lead to these awful things if it goes unnoticed or if it is ignored which is not true in the light that the film is putting it in. This representation of Mental Illness creates this narrative of fear behind it due to fear that this psychotic lifestyle of violence and freakouts is an exaggerated reality.

The negative representations go beyond Joker. In an article by PBS titled “Mental Illness in Film” the author goes on to talk about how these false perceptions of mental illness, specifically schizophrenia that we see in an abundance of films, make people fear the thought of potentially having these illnesses or even crossing paths with someone who does. A quote from the article encapsulates the negative effects very well by saying:

 “The National Institute of Mental Health in its statement on schizophrenia notes that ‘most violent crimes are not committed by persons with schizophrenia, and most persons with schizophrenia do not commit violent crimes.’ Laurie Flynn, former NAMI executive director, might as well have been speaking about any of these movies when she said of Me, Myself and Irene: ‘This movie reinforces a total misunderstanding of what schizophrenia really is. This character's violent, unpredictable behavior will be unfairly associated with having schizophrenia. It's terribly stigmatizing.’ NAMI's March makes the point that these demonizing portrayals "cause people to fear and isolate the mentally ill,’ and can discourage those suffering from psychosis from pursuing treatment”

This further enforces that negative and blatant incorrect representations can create these awful narratives of mental health. All of the talk about negative representations brings me to the actual meat of this post which is what does positive representation look like and why is it important to have it in film. The importance of positive representation is best stated by Montare Behavioral Health which stated in an article titled The Portrayal of Mental Health in Media that “By depicting real-life stories and struggles of the battles of poor mental health can not only help people to recognize that treatment may be necessary, but it also removes the stigma previously commonly associated with these diseases.” This makes good representation as a benefit to those who view these films because this can help break the stigma along with allowing people to acknowledge they might have a problem and to reach out for help. The first film that came to mind when I decided to focus on this topic was the 2012 film adaptation of Stephen Chbosky’s 1999 novel Perks of being a Wallflower. The film follows Charlie, a young teenager starting highschool, who has dealt with some heavy things in his life specifically the suicide of his best friend less than a year back, the death of his aunt which he blames on himself due to the fact that she died in a car crash while getting his birthday gift, and we would later find out that he suppressed the memory of being sexually assaulted by the same aunt. The film shows the audience a glimpse into how mental illness can look to someone with Charlie directly talking to the audience about the things that are going well and the things that are getting worse. The film portrays PTSD, depression, and psychiatric care in a very positive light. The film also portrays the major negative stigma behind mental illness especially in the beginning of the film with Charlie being ostracized by people who used to be his acquaintances just because he was the “freak” that spent most of the past summer in the hospital due to depression. The reality of the situation is that especially when the film was set, the 90s, mental illness had such a negative stigma that you were looked at as crazy if you had anything wrong with you. 

The film also depicted an extremely accurate portrayal of the importance of those around you and a support group. In the beginning of the film, Charlie is very quiet and closed off with his only friend being his English teacher and he is so closed off that he is brought to writing the answer to his teacher’s questions on his paper instead of raising his hand. He soon finds a support group with two seniors, Sam and Patrick, who take him in with open arms especially when he is invited to a party and unknowingly gets high after having a weed brownie. This prompts him to have a heart to heart with Sam while she is making him a milkshake where he mentions that his best friend shot himself the year prior leaving him friendless and broken. Sam relays this to Patrick who then makes a toast to Charlie and he has officially made friends. These friends allow Charlie to be himself and which allows him to enjoy himself which he has not done in a while. We did not realize how good that this support group was for him until he was pushed out. Charlie starts to spiral and starts having these flashbacks that makes him blackout major moments. These flashbacks resembled more of a dissociation rather than what actual flashbacks do which could him suppressing the sexual assault that he endured when he was younger which was not realized until he had a sexual encounter with Sam. This encounter causes him to spiral quickly where he eventually calls his sister rambling about Aunt Helen and which then prompts her to tell her friend to call 9-1-1 and send them to her house. 

The positive representation that comes in the film's final minutes come from a character that we meet after Charlie has this episode, Dr. Burton. With the help of Dr. Burton, Charlie is able to confront the awful thing that happened to him and learn how to live with this. One of the film’s most powerful moments in my opinion comes from when Dr. Burton informs Charlie’s parents about what Charlie has gone through and there were no words spoken in this scene but we can see his parents consoling him and having positive reactions. This scene creates a positive atmosphere of talking about problems with people you love because there are too many people that fear talking about their problems because they fear looking crazy.