Last anon ( the proshitter one ) is a complete idiot—because no, trauma reenactment is not “reclaiming your trauma” nor has it ever been.
Whether they call themselves “proship”, “darkship”, or “profic” it all boils down to trauma reenactment and literally announcing a grand opening of a candy store to predators—especially when you’re not “reclaiming trauma”, but sexualizing and romanticizing it.
“Reclaiming trauma” would be along the lines of advocating to help other victims, moving on from being a victim to a survivor, breaking your silence, etc. NOT being sexually attracted to abuse, torture, etc.
“Thoughtcrime this!” “Thoughcrime that!”
It’s no linger a fucking THOUGHT when you post it PUBLICLY for EVERYONE to see.
Like, there’s a reason why you get in trouble for posting about homicidal/suicidal ideation publicly compared to just harboring the thoughts to yourself—or even just telling the people you trust only!
I hate that predatory ass “community” so much, because they do nothing but cause actual harm. Majority of them have never even spoken about actual censorship, regarding queer literature, books regarding race and racism, etc.
It’s because they don’t care!
( Side note: I hope you’ve been doing okay recently. Dealing with these weirdos is genuinely mentally taxing to deal with. )
I honestly could not have worded this better myself.
This is EXACTLY what im trying to get across. I genuinely thank you for putting it in a more digestible format. /g
I really wish they were more aware , or that they actually did care. Especially knowing how many minors get roped into their cesspool of preds and ultimately just dig their own graves. So many traumatized people just retraumatizing themselves everyday and encouraging others to do the same. Encouraging harmful people to harm those who claim to desire to be harmed.
It's disgusting. Vile. All too much a reflection of human nature at its core , if I do say.
And thank you. I agree it can be a little exhausting. Though with the influx of newbies forming and splitting from multiple overlapping stressors , it has been easy to detach from the worst of things. /nav
It would be easier if they actually stuck to their "we dont harass anyone!11!!1" claims , considering how many like to fester in my inbox. They never know when to shut their trap and self reflect.
I am a follower — Yet, I'm rather anxious to directly message you. I am apart of the Anti Willo community and also have an AW account. You stopped associating with that. Did something personally happen within that community?
(sorry for the ignorant ask & being on anon. i'm not active on social media all that often.)
its okay, i explained why on the nekomura blog but ill explain here too.
another AW blog (wont name which one, everyone knows atp and i dont want people to harass others it wont solve shit) made 3 posts saying i should kms twice, called me a whore and blamed me for its sh after getting in an argument with the host about the cae server since the staff were being unfair to us and people shit talking us in the server because that person made it seem we said our trauma mattered more cause we said tcoaal is weird and was made by someone who openly has a incest fetish, it caused a lot of drama in the server with staff still defending that person and wouldnt punish it for harassing me and being shitty to others then also with a lot of the big peopl ebeing exposed as proshippers (we DONT AGREE AT ALLLL with the harassment they got it was disgusting and illegal what happened and shouldnt of happened.) we dont feel comfortable with proshippers and hate them cause the shit they put us through for years, so yea we decided to leave.
we still are anti endo/willo/tulpa but wont use that username because people in the community are toxic and weird
(this isnt my photo btw, I got it from this post.)
Seriously, Proshippers love to say 'HOW ABOUT YOU FOCUS ON VICTIMS!" "WE CARE ABOUT THE VICTIMS!" "WE'RE NOT PEDOPHILLES!" That shit, meanwhile when theres an ACTUAL CHILD PORN Ring going around on ao3 they dont give a shit.
Same with when victims of sexual abuse say that they dont like proshipping. They'll be like "oh well i didnt do it to you" "i dont care" or just excusing them.
Im just waiting for the fucking day ao3 dies.
edit - though im, sadly not surprised given its ao3.
its real fucking funny they say that too btw (ao3) when it actually is illegal to make stories like those about real people and when its words, so no it is a crime
(also another thing ao3 has been taking down stories that mention being pro Palestine but not stories that are the creator doing anything but writing a fic that is about actual illegal shit)
are you pro-harrassement, anti-harrassement or neutral-harrassement?
(sorry if its misspeled im high)
I’m anti-harassment! Sending people threats and shit is LAME.
If someone is doing something terrible, harassing them won’t change their mind. If someone is confused or wrong about something, harassing them won’t help them learn productively. If someone’s accidentally doing something bad, harassing them telling them they’re evil will only make them want to run to anyone who will be nice to them, even if it hurts them more.
(Also what the hell is neutral harassment that feels like the kind of thing you can only be on one side or the other for?)
That seems a bit redundant, because if someone's ok with people harassing others then that means they're pro harassment, regardless of if THEY personally harass people
as an anti endo does this source > https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/chapter/edited-volume/abs/pii/B9780122678059500183 from 2001 really prove that endo exists ? richard in this books states did do they exist
here is the part that he says it https://files.catbox.moe/if44bj.pnj
I got another ask about this, but it was a screenshot from [THE ONE WHO SHALL NOT BE NAMED].. Also, I am unable to view your catbox link.
I pulled a few strings and FINALLY managed to get my hands on the article itself and archived it for you guys to read on your own. Let's debunk it together because you cannot make a claim with one tiny bit of the source itself and expect others to believe it.
WORD COUNT: 1,180 WORDS
EST. READING TIME: 5 MIN
The evidence that was cited is a single sentence from a chapter by Richard Kluft on Dissociative Identity Disorder (DID) in The Disorders: Specialty Articles From The Encyclopedia of Mental Health by Howard S. Friedman (2001).
"It is unclear whether this reflects problems with the instrument or the diagnostic criteria, whether there are nonpathological endogenous forms of dissociative identity disorder, or whether patients remaining completely amnestic for childhood abuse were less symptomatic."
Page 199, A. Epidemiology
Some people interpret this as Kluft affirming the existence of endogenic systems. However, this interpretation does not hold up when the statement is examined in its full context.
The statement was speculation, not a conclusion. The most important thing to note is that Kluft was not presenting a finding. He was discussing the results of a population survey conducted by Ross and colleagues that appeared to identify more individuals meeting criteria for DID than expected.
Rather than claiming to know why this discrepancy existed, Kluft explicitly stated that the reason was unclear. He then listed several possible explanations:
- Problems with the diagnostic instrument.
- Problems with the diagnostic criteria.
- The possibility of nonpathological forms of DID.
- The possibility that some individuals remained amnestic for childhood abuse and therefore appeared less symptomatic.
In other words, Kluft was offering hypotheses, not conclusions. This contrast matters. When a researcher says that several explanations are possible, they are not endorsing any one of them as fact. To cite this sentence as proof that endogenic systems exist requires ignoring the fact that Kluft himself stated that the issue was unresolved.
The most important thing here is that the rest of the chapter supports a trauma-based model!
The broader context of the chapter makes the interpretation even more difficult to sustain. Immediately after discussing prevalence, Kluft turns to the question of etiology. There, he repeatedly describes DID as developing in children who are overwhelmed by experiences they cannot psychologically manage.
He proceeded to write the following:
"Kluft's four-factor theory holds that dissociative identity disorder occurs in (factor 1) a dissociation prone child (a biological capacity) who experiences (factor 2) overwhelming stressors that cannot be managed with nondissociative defenses.
While child abuse is the most frequent stressor in North American studies, this may not be universally the case. Exposure to death, vicarious traumatization (by witnessing the intentional or accidental death or mistreatment of others), the loss of significant persons, cultural dislocation, dysfunctional family pressures (often in the
context of divorce), childhood illness and injury, and repeated childhood surgeries have been cited as instrumental overwhelming stressors as well.
The child makes use of (factor 3) various shaping influences and substrates to form the kernel of the various alters. These may include life experiences and crucial persons in the child's life space via introjection, internalization, and identification), imaginary companionship, developmental lines, extrinsic interpersonal influences from childhood (encouragement of role-playing and acting, contradictory caretaker demands or reinforcement systems, or identification with a dissociative parent) and from contemporary sources (previous therapy, the media and literature, errors in technique, autohypnotic coping).
Finally, the situation is reinforced by (factor 4) the inadequate provision of stimulus barriers and restorative experiences by significant others. This approach to etiology is consistent with clinical experience."
Page 199-201, B. Etiology
Kluft further notes that studies consistently found histories of abuse among the overwhelming majority of DID patients. He cites research reporting childhood abuse histories in as many as 97–98% of cases and documented abuse in the vast majority of investigated patients.
Far from arguing that DID commonly arises without trauma, the chapter presents childhood trauma and overwhelming stress as the central framework for understanding the disorder.
If Kluft truly believed that non-traumatic DID was an established phenomenon, one would expect that position to be reflected consistently throughout the chapter's discussion of etiology. Instead, the opposite is true.
Another common problem with this claim is that it projects modern internet terminology backward onto a text written in 2001.
Kluft never mentions endogenic systems, natural plurality, tulpamancy, soulbonding, median systems, non-traumagenic plurality communities. None of these concepts appear in the chapter. As a result, using this sentence as evidence that Kluft was discussing contemporary endogenic identities is historically inaccurate. At most, he was briefly entertaining a hypothetical explanation for unexpected survey results.
"Nonpathological DID" Is not the same as endogenicity either. Even if one assumes Kluft was seriously considering the possibility of nonpathological DID, this still would not automatically support modern endogenic claims. The discussion occurs in a section about prevalence and diagnosis. Kluft was attempting to explain why certain survey respondents appeared to meet DID criteria despite not presenting as obvious clinical cases.
One possible interpretation of his statement is that some individuals might display DID-like traits without suffering from the level of impairment typically associated with psychiatric treatment populations.
That is a very different claim from saying that individuals can naturally develop alters entirely independent of trauma, dissociation, or developmental disruption. In fact, Kluft never makes that argument anywhere in the chapter.
The Diagnostic Criteria still required dissociative symptoms too. Kluft reproduces the DSM-IV criteria for DID, which require two or more distinct identities or personality states, recurrent control of behavior by at least two of those states, and significant amnesia that cannot be explained by ordinary forgetfulness.
These are not descriptions of ordinary identity variation, roleplay, imagination, or healthy multiplicity. They are clinical dissociative symptoms.
Consequently, even the phrase "nonpathological DID" creates a conceptual problem. DID is, by definition, a disorder. The presence of DID criteria implies clinically significant dissociative phenomena.
This further suggests that Kluft's remark was exploratory and tentative rather than an attempt to establish a new diagnostic category.
Throughout the text he repeatedly describes DID as a naturalistically occurring disorder. He connects its development to overwhelming childhood experiences, discusses trauma as the primary context in which DID emerges, notes the extremely high rates of documented abuse among DID patients, and supports treatment models designed around trauma processing and integration.
The chapter does not present evidence for endogenic systems. It does not establish non-traumatic DID. It does not validate modern endogenic theories.
Instead, it contains a single speculative sentence in which Kluft briefly considers several possible explanations for an unexpected survey result and explicitly states that the correct explanation is unknown.
So, here's your conclusion. The claim that Richard Kluft "proved" or "confirmed" endogenic systems in 2001 is based on a misreading of a single sentence removed from its context. The person who made this claim has stated before "I don't believe in context", so truly, can you believe someone making a claim without further context..?
Regardless, Kluft did not conclude that nonpathological endogenous forms of DID exist. He merely listed that possibility among several competing explanations for unusual survey findings and explicitly stated that the matter was unresolved.
When the remainder of the chapter is examined, Kluft's actual position becomes clear that DID is presented as a trauma-associated dissociative disorder arising in overwhelmed children, NOT as evidence for modern endogenic theories of plurality.
Remember, science is full of proposed explanations that were never supported by later evidence.
Read The Disorders: Specialty Articles From The Encyclopedia of Mental Health by Howard S. Friedman here (SPECIFICALLY ONLY RICHARD KLUFT'S ARTICLE, NO OTHERS ARE PROVIDED)!
WORD COUNT: 14,207 WORDS
EST. READING TIME: 1 HOUR, 11 MIN
hey.. guys.. guys... someone on here—i dont know which one, but they're in our community i believe—has made a post relating to empowered multiples and stated that Sigmund Freud coined endogenic.
I cannot find the post for the LIFE of me, but I saw a screenshot and I genuinely got really mad because now we're spreading misinfo without any sources for the hell of it.
Sigmund Freud did NOT coin 'endogenic'. The term came from endogenous—a word used by early psychiatrists like Emil Kraepelin in the late 1800s to describe the biological roots of mental disorders—and in online psychiatry and early Tumblr around 2014, the term endogenic was made. Check your sources before making info posts, I literally BEG you.
seeing how many toby fictive blogs are either pro rq or pro willo or both makes me wanna puke and i will think your a fucking cornball. No its not "more like source" to want to touch kids and fake a disorder, ive been bullied enough in source for my disorder whyd i want to do that to others? and why would i want to touch kids?? fucking weirdos need to stop using "but my source is a bad person!!" as an excuse because guess what!! even i, toby have my limits and talking about source he'd never do that shit!!! murderer doesnt mean "i wanna touch kids!!!!" you are a bunch of corny weirdos fuck off!! seeing though as im one of the very few toby fictives on this hellsite thats not into kids or ableism it really strokes my ego lol.
moral of the story im better than most of you and the coolest toby ever (this isnt serious... also i love other tobys who arent weird even if my random ego spikes tell me to hate them lolll)
yousharknotpass
gummygunk
tangentwithtanner
prguitarman
snowghoul
romaincrisis
