Log In

Home
    - Create Journal
    - Update
    - Download

LiveJournal
    - News
    - Paid Accounts
    - Contributors

Customize
    - Customize Journal
    - Create Style
    - Edit Style

Find Users
    - Random!
    - By Region
    - By Interest
    - Search

Edit ...
    - Personal Info &
      Settings
    - Your Friends
    - Old Entries
    - Your Pictures
    - Your Password

Developer Area

Need Help?
    - Lost Password?
    - Freq. Asked
      Questions
    - Support Area



vassilissa ([info]vassilissa) wrote in [info]otf_wank,
@ 2009-12-15 18:54:00


Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Satanic ritual abuse wank
I dithered about whether to put this in unfunnybusiness or here, but in the end Satanic Ritual Abuse is not real, and what the person who said it was said was so funny it belonged here.

People who blatantly deny the existence of ritual abuse after being offered solid resources to the contrary demonstrate that they don’t need evidence about its existence. Instead, when they continue to deny its existence in a seemingly obsessive manner, they are more likely trolling for new victims in hopes that responding survivors will – while more emotional – slip-up and provide vulnerable, personal information.

There you go. If you deny the existance of ritual abuse, it's because you're looking for new victims to ritually abuse.


(Read comments) - (Post a new comment)


[info]solle
2009-12-15 10:55 am UTC (link)
I'm sure there have been plenty of idiots out there who thought hurting children was a perfectly appropriate way to worship Satan (or whoever else). There's no way that didn't happen at least once. And I wouldn't be shocked at all if it turns out some of those sick fucks were organized.

I get that people are skeptical about the individual stories, but why are they so skeptical about ritual abuse in general? What's the point of that? Children are abused everywhere, there's pedophile rings in every country, and the chances of at least a handful of those rings being full of religious nuts are high enough.

And if that kind of abuse really happened to someone, there's nothing wanky about them developing paranoia later on in life from the resulting trauma. Even if it only happened in their head, they still obviously suffer from some kind of trauma or mental illness, and they're looking at their situation as rationally as it possible for them at this time.

tl;dr unfunny business, and not even wank.

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]solle
2009-12-15 10:56 am UTC (link)
> is possible. I can type.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]smashingstars
2009-12-15 11:25 am UTC (link)
I agree. People in the thread OP links to have said exactly what you did, and of course this book is from 1990, at the end of the Satanic Panic period, which explains a lot.

Besides, there are other replies in the thread of the same ilk as the one OP specifically linked to, so I'm not sure what the intent of this post was anyway. Deliberately singling out Sullivan because she posted multiple times? Also also plus, the thread was closed down, so nothing more will develop from this. So... not findin' the wank.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]atalantapendrag
2009-12-15 12:00 pm UTC (link)
Agreed.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]eleutheria
2009-12-15 12:00 pm UTC (link)
People are skeptical about "satanic ritual abuse" in general because there's been a fairly consistent pattern of people inducing memories of shit that didn't happen in people (particularly Dominionist cults) who then turn against their families and their friends-- people have lost their children over SRA accusations, their livelihoods, and even their freedom. And it's been used over and over again to persecute people for following Pagan and Satanist religions and deny people religious freedom. Every single investigation of this shit in every single country where it has surfaced has found nothing. Some countries have gone back on their charges against people caught up in this lie. The US hasn't.

And I agree, it's really seriously unfunnybusiness.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]eleutheria
2009-12-15 12:06 pm UTC (link)
And, for those interested, more info on recent developments about SRA.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]solle
2009-12-15 12:15 pm UTC (link)
Inducing memories is still abuse, and it doesn't matter what specific cult did it or what they worshipped. And even if no evidence of physical abuse was found, it's still possible that it happened. And if it didn't happen back then, all the media coverage probably has inspired some sick fucks later on to try it anyway.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]eleutheria
2009-12-15 12:29 pm UTC (link)
Have there been people who identified as Pagan or Satanist who abused people? Yes-- not only possibly, but definitely, some have been exposed. Is there an organized conspiracy to ritually abuse Christian children? Absolutely not, there is no evidence anywhere of any such thing, and belief in this lie has caused untold damage. There are abusers in every religion, it doesn't mean there's something rotten and conspiratorial at the core of the faith-- if it did, nobody would still be Catholic.

(And YES, it does matter what they worshipped, when it's used as grounds to deny entire minority religions their right to freely worship.)

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]msmanna
2009-12-15 12:33 pm UTC (link)
Inducing memories is still abuse

Not induced by cults. Induced by bad/incompetent psychologists and law enforcement officers. And, yes. I'd say that is abuse.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]eleutheria, 2009-12-15 05:55 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]kylenne, 2009-12-15 06:27 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]eleutheria, 2009-12-16 12:44 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]issendai, 2009-12-15 10:40 pm UTC

[info]beccastareyes
2009-12-15 02:48 pm UTC (link)
Usually it's not the families inducing the memories, but (poor) psychologists, acting under the belief that hypnotic suggestion can't create what isn't there.

There are books specifically about the phenomenon, but I learned about it in Demon-Haunted World by Carl Sagan. (The book is advocating for critical thinking and science versus superstition, and so a great deal of it talked about the ways our perceptions and common sense could be mistaken.)

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]lady_ganesh, 2009-12-15 05:28 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]miss_padfoot, 2009-12-15 11:30 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]lady_ganesh, 2009-12-15 05:33 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]sneer, 2009-12-15 06:03 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]lady_ganesh, 2009-12-15 06:14 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]sneer, 2009-12-15 06:37 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]melannen, 2009-12-15 06:57 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]sandglass, 2009-12-15 11:11 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]eilan, 2009-12-16 12:40 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]inalasahl, 2009-12-17 12:13 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]sneer, 2009-12-15 06:49 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]melange, 2009-12-15 07:28 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]sneer, 2009-12-15 07:53 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]sarracenia, 2009-12-15 08:33 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]sneer, 2009-12-15 09:00 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]melange, 2009-12-15 08:34 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]jupiterpluvius, 2009-12-17 02:39 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]kylenne, 2009-12-15 06:30 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]sneer, 2009-12-15 06:46 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]ayezur, 2009-12-15 06:55 pm UTC
(no subject) - tetradecimal, 2009-12-15 09:46 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]sneer, 2009-12-15 10:16 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]white_serpent, 2009-12-15 11:03 pm UTC
(no subject) - tetradecimal, 2009-12-15 11:24 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]lady_ganesh, 2009-12-16 01:02 am UTC
(no subject) - tetradecimal, 2009-12-16 03:11 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]lady_ganesh, 2009-12-16 03:20 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]nevadafighter, 2009-12-16 05:51 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]ecchaniz0r, 2009-12-16 12:42 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]sneer, 2009-12-16 01:15 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]duraniedrama, 2009-12-15 09:38 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]sneer, 2009-12-16 01:35 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]lady_ganesh, 2009-12-16 02:02 am UTC

[info]seiberwing
2009-12-17 12:05 am UTC (link)
And that part, to me, is the real unfunny.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]phosfate
2009-12-15 04:06 pm UTC (link)
Children are abused everywhere. But the ritualized, Satanic-panic daycare abuse scenario described in this book is fucking bullshit, and the hysteria over it harms everone it touches.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]ecchaniz0r
2009-12-15 04:46 pm UTC (link)
This.

Hell, I remember about twenty different stories about daycares in various cities that were apparently outfitted with secret passageways, had multiple levels of basement for various degrees of initiation/atrocity, had networks of interconnected underground chambers...

They actually did check one of these out because there was a fresh concrete patch on the floor in ABOUT the same place as a kid had reported a trapdoor to the basements of doom.

Turns out there had been one there once, but all it led to was a two foot deep whole that'd apparently once been a utility vault. Oops.

There are enough REAL cases of prolonged fucked-up abuse in this world; we don't need screaming histrionic failure-fuckery lies like this that in the end BADLY UNDERMINE THE CHANCES REAL ABUSE SUFFERERS HAVE AT BEING BELIEVED BECAUSE THEY LEND FURTHER EIGHT TO THE PRIVILEGED NOTION THAT PEOPLE WHO CALL OUT ABUSE ARE LYING HYSTERICS.

Its good to be vigilant but crying wolf over every piece of bullshit sensationalist OMGOMGOMGOMGOMG CULLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLT dreck encountered does a fuckton more harm than good.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]lady_ganesh, 2009-12-15 05:36 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]ecchaniz0r, 2009-12-15 06:41 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]bobafeis, 2009-12-15 10:21 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]lady_ganesh, 2009-12-16 12:58 am UTC

[info]lady_ganesh
2009-12-15 05:28 pm UTC (link)
Thank you, yes.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]white_serpent
2009-12-15 05:45 pm UTC (link)
Exactly. An extension of this kind of paranoia is why my mother-in-law forwards me every. single. urban. legend. to hit her email box, all of them describing ways something seemingly-harmless is going to cause a woman to be attacked.

Could something similar happen one day? Maybe (technical impossibilities aside), but focusing on it is just encouraging women to be afraid to go out in public.

The RSA panic just leads to people believing that it's never, under any circumstances, safe to have your children out of your sight. That's paralyzing.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]lady_ganesh, 2009-12-15 06:16 pm UTC

[info]mmanurere
2009-12-16 06:49 am UTC (link)
The "Satanic panic" schtick also actually helps provide cover for real, widespread child abuse at the hands of "mainstream" fundamentalist Protestant religious groups. It helps frame abuse as something done by "them", rather than crimes committed most often by parents and trusted adults (clergy, etc.). It has the same social function as smearing gay men for child molestation -- it leaves the actual abusers free to act.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]snarp
2009-12-15 10:19 pm UTC (link)
I'm sorry, but I don't think you don't understand why you're upsetting people here. No one in this thread is claiming that child abuse doesn't happen, and no one is claiming that abusers don't occasionally claim religious motives. The issue is that the phrase "ritual abuse" has a very specific meaning and history - it refers to non-Christians, in particular pagans and Satanists, abusing children for religious reasons in an organized fashion. This claim is used by religious extremists to demonize non-Christians, and tends to get linked up with larger conspiracy theories, particularly the "international Jewish conspiracy" subset.

A useful thing to remember about these claims is that the people making are frequently making money off of them - Michelle Smith, the most famous alleged abuse survivor, sold a best-selling book about her (fictional) experiences, and her husband and therapist was hired as a consultant in other cases; Mike Warnke had both a book and lucrative speaking career.

As melannen points out upstream in the thread, ritual abuse accusations are, in essence, a form of the blood libel, the claim that a given group eats children. The ideas of cannibalism and of deliberately hurting children are triggers of fear and disgust in pretty much every culture, so an accusation that a group of people do so frequently as part of their culture is a quick, simple way to dehumanize that group. It is a tactic that's been used by many different religious and ethnic groups throughout human history to paint other religious and ethnic groups as barbaric and subhuman.

The most famous example of the blood libel is probably the persistent accusations by medieval Christians that Jews kidnapped Christian children and use their blood to make matzos at Passover. This claim was often used in Germany in France as a rationale for the systematic killing of Jews and the seizure of Jewish property by the government. It was most common in unstable social times, when some city was concerned its citizens might aim their unrest at the government and wished to redirect it, or difficult economic times, which the city felt might be alleviated by the seizure of the Jews' property. Sociologists feel that similar factors come into play with ritual abuse accusations - the most famous case

The blood libel still persists today and there's an interesting feature of it that I think might help make it clear to you why you're offending people here: White supremacist groups in the United States frequently use exactly the same arguments you're using here in its defense. They defend their right to claim that Jews kill children, in spite of historical evidence against it, by saying that it only happened sometimes and it wasn't organized. If I understand you correctly, you're arguing that "ritual abuse" might happen, but not in an organized manner, not in large groups, and not only by non-Christians. The problem there is that the specific definition of the term "ritual abuse" is, in fact, the organized, large-scale abuse of children by non-Christians. If you say "ritual abuse," that's what people think of. What you're doing here, in essence, is not defending children, but defending the use of a term, and one with a very, very unpleasant history.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]snarp
2009-12-15 10:23 pm UTC (link)
I apologize profusely for the insane number of typos in this comment - I hit "post" instead of "preview."

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]ecchaniz0r
2009-12-16 12:43 am UTC (link)
You and your icon are my heroes today.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]snarp, 2009-12-16 03:23 am UTC

[info]lady_ganesh
2009-12-16 12:58 am UTC (link)

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]sneer
2009-12-16 01:30 am UTC (link)
Holy shit. Thank you for spelling this out, and I don't mean that facetiously. I honestly had no idea the term itself was so bad.

What should one call child abuse committed in a religious context, then--or should it just not be distinguished from other kinds of abuse? Again, I'm not trying to be a smartass, but people using their religion, any religion to justify hurting their children is just particularly vile and disgusting to me.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]snarp, 2009-12-16 02:29 am UTC

[info]eleutheria
2009-12-16 02:59 am UTC (link)
Thank you for this, you did a marvelous job explaining!

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]melannen
2009-12-16 03:12 am UTC (link)
Thank you for going into the necessary detail on this! I wouldn't have been able to do it nearly so well, and I am so glad it got said.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]solle
2009-12-16 02:06 pm UTC (link)
I'm sorry, but I don't think you don't understand why you're upsetting people here.

What.

I mean, thanks for the explanation, I didn't know most of the history behind it, and I appreciate the effort. But why do you accuse me of lying about... well, about apparently not knowing why I was upsetting people? Which I apparently did before I even "upset" anyone?

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]snarp, 2009-12-16 03:47 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]cmdr_zoom, 2009-12-16 06:05 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]snarp, 2009-12-16 06:10 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]snarp, 2009-12-16 06:11 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]solle, 2009-12-16 06:41 pm UTC

[info]phosfate
2009-12-16 05:03 pm UTC (link)
You're kind of awesome.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


(Read comments) -

 
   
Privacy Policy - COPPA
Legal Disclaimer - Site Map