Hikaru says that the pedophile world, at least in the US, appears to be a small one.)
Mori: I mean, they're a small, super-marginalized group with all the reason in the world to be secretive and paranoid. So it makes sense they would be small and close-knit; it's been a while and I can't find the doc, so grain of salt, but I seem to recall that a lot of child porn is made informally by a small number of people and just endlessly privately circulated between them. (You know, the equivalent of family photos.) I didn't know about Thorstad, though! How come y'all keep running into him? (Then again, we don't read Trotsky...)
That blog post also details how Nathan tried to stop publication of Cheit's book with a threat to sue for libel for criticizing her badly researched book, but since that threat was toothless, it did not stop the book at all and she ultimately did nothing. hah!
Rogan: Oh man, Debbie Nathan. Yeah, she's... she's like that. And so is the "National Centre for Reason and Justice", which seems mostly dedicated to trying to protect convicted child sex criminals, even the ones who are unequivocally utterly undeniably "yes, they did this, for a long time, folks knew for decades" like Father Shanley. It's a horror show.
As for the article, Playboy has it online behind a paywall, but since it'd cost me like $8, I might invest to get my hands on it. From what I can see (and it's cited elsewhere, including by Elizabeth Loftus), that article seems to be more focused on the nature of incest support groups and a sense of competition between folks to have the most gruesome memories. This and the quote you use do seem to mesh with what of Nathan's work I've read, though again, I want to read it to be sure.
Which, I mean. I admit, I don't like Nathan. I find her creepy, the amount of fact-checking she seems to require means I have to take everything she says with more salt than I'd like (to the point that the only reason I read her is because I have to deal with her claims from other people), and she seems to have a fixation on The Witch-Hunt Narrative and taking it very personally, instead of recognizing that maybe the book wouldn't have been created if she had been more transparent and honest with her goddamn data in the FIRST PLACE.
With all that said, though, that article took place in 1992, RIGHT around when the False Memory Syndrome Foundation was founded, and when the Memory Wars were slamming down. And yes, the FMSF and the NCRJ are abusers lobbies... BUT THERE REALLY WAS FUCKED UP STUFF GOING ON IN THE RECOVERY MOVEMENT!
Like, I've been in a lot of multi groups, and I've read a lot of stuff. There IS sometimes pressure to express gruesome histories, though it may not be conscious or overt! (Though sometimes it is--I see the genic pissing wars as, at base, the same old shit, of folks with trauma DEMANDING other plurals cough up theirs or else be kicked out of the clubhouse. They paint it with "appropriation" horseshit instead of, "your misery dick must be THIS BIG to ride the Multi Train," but it's still social pressure to use abuse history to be in the in-group.) There were and are unscrupulous or woefully naive therapists out there who fuck people up with bogus groups! There's a REASON I highly don't recommend doing memory work among other corporeal people, because it can so easily lead to shit like this!
So that part at least is sort of right, but Nathan requires so much salt with everything she writes that even when she's RIGHT, there has to be a lot of explaining. Just UGH.
Why does she have such an interest in defending rapists and pedophiles? I am curious!
Man, Akira, I wish I knew. The best guess I can toss out is that she's a hardcore contrarian. I hope that's all she is.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2019-07-22 06:11 pm (UTC)Mori: I mean, they're a small, super-marginalized group with all the reason in the world to be secretive and paranoid. So it makes sense they would be small and close-knit; it's been a while and I can't find the doc, so grain of salt, but I seem to recall that a lot of child porn is made informally by a small number of people and just endlessly privately circulated between them. (You know, the equivalent of family photos.) I didn't know about Thorstad, though! How come y'all keep running into him? (Then again, we don't read Trotsky...)
That blog post also details how Nathan tried to stop publication of Cheit's book with a threat to sue for libel for criticizing her badly researched book, but since that threat was toothless, it did not stop the book at all and she ultimately did nothing. hah!
Rogan: Oh man, Debbie Nathan. Yeah, she's... she's like that. And so is the "National Centre for Reason and Justice", which seems mostly dedicated to trying to protect convicted child sex criminals, even the ones who are unequivocally utterly undeniably "yes, they did this, for a long time, folks knew for decades" like Father Shanley. It's a horror show.
BUT I HAVE A PERSONAL STORY ABOUT DEBBIE NATHAN! Check it out! But yeah. She has uh. She apparently has a Google Alerts set up for the Witch-Hunt Narrative.
As for the article, Playboy has it online behind a paywall, but since it'd cost me like $8, I might invest to get my hands on it. From what I can see (and it's cited elsewhere, including by Elizabeth Loftus), that article seems to be more focused on the nature of incest support groups and a sense of competition between folks to have the most gruesome memories. This and the quote you use do seem to mesh with what of Nathan's work I've read, though again, I want to read it to be sure.
Which, I mean. I admit, I don't like Nathan. I find her creepy, the amount of fact-checking she seems to require means I have to take everything she says with more salt than I'd like (to the point that the only reason I read her is because I have to deal with her claims from other people), and she seems to have a fixation on The Witch-Hunt Narrative and taking it very personally, instead of recognizing that maybe the book wouldn't have been created if she had been more transparent and honest with her goddamn data in the FIRST PLACE.
With all that said, though, that article took place in 1992, RIGHT around when the False Memory Syndrome Foundation was founded, and when the Memory Wars were slamming down. And yes, the FMSF and the NCRJ are abusers lobbies... BUT THERE REALLY WAS FUCKED UP STUFF GOING ON IN THE RECOVERY MOVEMENT!
Like, I've been in a lot of multi groups, and I've read a lot of stuff. There IS sometimes pressure to express gruesome histories, though it may not be conscious or overt! (Though sometimes it is--I see the genic pissing wars as, at base, the same old shit, of folks with trauma DEMANDING other plurals cough up theirs or else be kicked out of the clubhouse. They paint it with "appropriation" horseshit instead of, "your misery dick must be THIS BIG to ride the Multi Train," but it's still social pressure to use abuse history to be in the in-group.) There were and are unscrupulous or woefully naive therapists out there who fuck people up with bogus groups! There's a REASON I highly don't recommend doing memory work among other corporeal people, because it can so easily lead to shit like this!
So that part at least is sort of right, but Nathan requires so much salt with everything she writes that even when she's RIGHT, there has to be a lot of explaining. Just UGH.
Why does she have such an interest in defending rapists and pedophiles? I am curious!
Man, Akira, I wish I knew. The best guess I can toss out is that she's a hardcore contrarian. I hope that's all she is.