Defining Abuse...

It's also important to realize that how abuse impacts one person doesn't necessarily impact another person the exact same way. One child may be able to cope with it better than another simply based upon their own resiliency and brain chemistry.

There are many children who are severely traumatized because of repeated acts of violence against their person. There are other children who are severely traumatized by simply witnessing acts of violence against other family members even if a hand is never laid upon them at all. Other children can be on the receiving end of the most horrendous acts and seem to come through it with little or no trauma or harm. There simply isn't one answer that fits all instances.

Abuse isn't defined by the person dishing it out, it's defined by the recipient of it, and while there very well may be those who survive it without any residual harm or trauma, that isn't the case the majority of the time.

Whenever someone asks me how to tell if it's abuse or not, I reply that if the recipient is in need of physical or mental healthcare after the incident, then it's most definitely abuse. Even if it isn't until years later when they realize it.

Now, with all that being said, let's remember that many of us here have already suffered enough abuse in our lives ... Let's do our best to not trigger or retraumatize each other while trying to define exactly what it means to each of us.

,
Pfrog!

Wiki - your mom sounds kinda nuts. I know I stayed away from mine as much as possible even from a very young age because I was afraid of her. Or as my dad said, to keep the peace in the family. There was no reasoning with her. Why were they mothers?? Because that's what everyone did? Could it have been post-partum depression? What was she like before she got married - any clues?

For me, it's a little like the PTSD diagnosis. So many people use it as an excuse for their own poor behavior

I hope what I have to say is relevant to the OP, in the sense that the diagnoses of PTSD has a lot to do with the labeling of our bad experiences. If not, sorry for going off-topic in advance.

I have a problem with what is cited above as well. I think it is wildly overdiagnosed these days. I also think it is a socio-historical issue, in the sense that 10 years from now this may well no longer be the case. I have seen PTSD diagnosed for nasty divorces, nasty bosses/coworkers, the death of a loved one, and a myriad of other things. I think as a culture, we have a hard time sometimes accepting that cr**p happens (I have lived extensively in other cultures) and it can be counter-productive to slap a diagnosis on someone for the normal grieving process or normal reactions to really sucky situations.

To the extent that diagnoses can stay with you the rest of your life, and some people come to identify with their diagnoses to the point of them becoming a big part of *who they are*, then I think this can hinder recovery and moving on. In our society bad things *are not supposed to happen*, they are *unacceptable* not a part of life. And, as in the issue of suing everyone and their grandmother for something bad happening to them, I think there's a tendency here to look for someone or something to blame. I think the theory is, that this is validating and helps us to heal and move on; I'm not convinced this is always the case.

I personally think that part of the reason for the overdiagnosis of PTSD is the result of well-meaning therapists (and/or pdocs) trying to
validate people's experiences and perhaps also as part of a pendulum swing from -and a black and white conceptualization of- blame the victim vs not your fault (PTSD = not your fault). Yes, the original incident was probably 'not your fault' but subsequent behavior -responsibility can be taken for that, without this meaning that you are being blamed for the original incident.

So how empowering is this, really? Almost everything (though not all) I read about the use of the diagnosis is positive, but I'm not sure it always is, and to write about the negatives of this I think would be so politically incorrect these days (with the distinct possibility of being accused of 'blaming the victim') that you just don't see it out there.

I think the diagnosis can lead people to believe that all of their
behavior, mood issues, interpersonal issues, lead back to PTSD, which, for one thing, discounts and minimizes so much else in one's life and so many other parts of who one is. I think, sometimes, far from empowering, it can hinder healing and growth, if too much emphasis is put on it, and if it becomes too much a part of someone's identity.

Being diagnosed with PTSD is part of the process of defining our experiences. I think perhaps it can help some people who overly-minimize the severity of experiences/symptoms, and in other cases, overly-maximize (if this is a word) some people's experiences and subsequent reactions to them. With other ramifications in between.

I am dx'd with PTSD...but my pdoc said that a person had to be "in danger of, or in fear of loosing their life at the time of the trauma". Not sure how true that is, but sounded good to me.

Hanksta...she was nuts. She would starve us for days, I would sneak into neighbors homes and steal food for my brother and I. We weren't allowed to shower, and we had to stay out of her sight at all times. Dad could be brutal...he broke my arm a few times, but he sometimes sneaked food to me, and would brush my hair if I was really good to him. Craziness. All the way around.

I have C-PTSD and I work diligently to not allow it to have a negative impact on me and those around me. While I firmly believe that we can't use abuse (or PTSD) as an excuse for our behavior, though, neither can we deny cause and effect.

Studies have shown that long term abuse definitely has a deleterious impact on the development of the part of the brain that has to do with reasoning and impulse control. These studies and images even show how stunted the growth is in this particular part of the brain. Man was I shocked when I discovered all this. However, it doesn't mean one necessarily loses all ability to reason and exercise control, though, and for me it simply means I have to work harder to overcome whatever damage has been done.

I had the unpleasant experience of some jerk who had developed PTSD due to his military experience. This was a handsome young man who could have had a bright future, but he had a bad habit of picking fights with everybody he came into contact with by saying and doing horribly cruel things to people - just to be mean.

One night he decided it was my turn to be on the receiving end of his crap and it backfired on him horribly. The next week he was made to apologize to me before being suspended from the group we belonged to at the time. He prefaced his apology with the PTSD card and I immediately called him on his BS because I also have it, but I'm not out here engaging in destructive behaviors by trying to pick fights with everybody I meet, so I'm not buying his excuse I told him.

I told him that if he didn't seriously address his issues in therapy that he most likely would end up seriously injured or dead because he was going to end up picking a fight with the wrong person one night and end up being served in a way he wouldn't be able to get a do-over on. I sincerely hope he took that advice.

I can't help that I have C-PTSD, but I can help what I choose to do with it. That doesn't mean that I don't get triggered sometimes and react in ways I'm not particularly proud of. Regardless of all that, even, and whether or not I can help it, I understand that I must take full responsibility for it ... That and nothing less. It's my job to control it instead of letting it control me, and it can be done.

I think that defining abuse is a difficult task due to the myriad of factors involved.

I really hope that doctors don't diagnose PTSD in order to validate a patient, that seems to be very irresponsible. I suspect it may happen at times, though.

This is the definition of validation:
"Validation is the recognition and acceptance of another person’s internal experience as being valid. Emotional validation is distinguished from emotional invalidation, in which your own or another person’s emotional experiences are rejected, ignored, or judged. Self-validation is the recognition and acknowledgement of your own internal experience.
Validation does not mean agreeing with or supporting feelings or thoughts. Validating does not mean love. You can validate someone you don’t like even though you probably wouldn’t want to."

A therapist does not have to diagnose to validate a person's inner experience, and validation doesn't mean encouraging bad behaviors, encouraging abusive behaviors or allowing a person to feel like a victim. It has more to do with helping the patient feel less fragmented, and more whole. Recognizing and accepting the patient for where they are at the moment, as in how they feel, can greatly affect change.

I do believe that there are people who need to be kept separate from society for the safety of society, whether their abusive acts have a discernible root of cause or not. I think that society now realizes how war seriously impacts some of the soldiers, depending on their genetic makeup. I think things are getting better about realizing that their diagnosis of PTSD is real and that it isn't something of which to be ashamed (I don't see anyone here saying that). I still don't think they are getting enough of what they need in order to surmount the horrific impact that killing others, fear of being killed, being tortured, etc., exacts. Again, we can't have soldiers coming home and taking out his/her hostility on others, but my wish is that we could help them with this BEFORE any of this happens. I just say this as I know someone whose husband had PTSD (although he wasn't violent), and he was not helped and it negatively impacted him occupationally.

I will now step off of my soapbox.

I agree with all of this!

But I don't think that the distinction you make here between validating emotions and emotional experience and validating behavior is always drawn so neatly (I'm not referring to you, or to anyone in particular for that matter). Of course, it's reasonable to say (and believe) that one's feelings are understandable, they're valid, they're justified, acknowledge this, empathize with it. I think where things get murky is when someone might *misinterpret* this to mean that any behaviors stemming from those valid, justifiable emotions are also justified. Or, conversely, misinterpret challenges to behavior as invalidation of emotion/thinking.

I hear and understand what you are saying, you make an interesting point, and I considered what you said before replying. I don't notice that many people think that their behaviors, whatever those might be, are justified. In fact, what I see is people who feel deep shame and self-hatred as a result, and if people seem defensive about someone challenging behaviors (T) it is generally, in my opinion, not to justify behaviors now or in the future, but maybe to accept who one was in the past. I am basically talking about pushing boundaries in therapy (not trampling them). In my experience, and I am hoping that in others experience also, having my T validate my emotions diffused resulting behaviors. I know I am a bit pig-headed on this one, I just know it has really helped me, more than I ever would have guessed. I had free reign to email my therapist during his five-week hiatus, and I didn't, and it is because he has created a safe, validating environment. As a result, I really feel empowered. It has been difficult work, and I don't want any shame from my past with xT ruining my progress. This is just my experience, though, and I am not sure if any others have had this result.

Again, I completely agree with you. I know and am very happy for you that your therapy is going so well. Clearly your last therapist didn't validate your emotions, this one has, and has been hugely helpful in this and other ways. When I write about these issues, I am not referring to you personally and I more often than not agree with what you write on these topics, and yet I get a sense that you feel on the defensive and take some things personally that really are not directed at you. As I say, I really and truly agree with you and really and truly believe that you have a wonderful therapist and am happy for you that things are going so well in this therapy. Please try and believe me on this, okay?

I am not looking for reassurance, and I didn't feel as if I was being targeted in a group or singly, nor did I take things personally. I was trying to make a point, to state my views like everyone else. Your sense has misled you.

Pfrog just wants to clarify that her C-PTSD didn't come from being in the military or combat. It came from growing up in a chaotic, violent home that was rife with physical, sexual, emotional and verbal abuse. That to me is akin to being in a war zone on the homefront, and I lived it for 33.5 years.

I feel deeply for veterans who have grown up in just such a war zone themselves, because more than likely they already had PTSD or C-PTSD before receiving a whole other dose of it in the military and on the battle lines. Kind of like a double dose!

However, there is help and we can learn coping skills and ways to alleviate outside stressors that keep it activated and flared up. That doesn't mean we won't get triggered here, yonder and there and have serious dissociative reactions, but it does mean we can lesson the times this does happen and hopefully be able to react less extremely when it does happen.

ps. Pfrog is still trying to master paragraph three ...