![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 19 of 19. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by used2b on April 11, 2005, at 20:12:06
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20050408/msgs/483022.html
I am prohibited from stating how I might be affected by discourse that makes fun of sexual abuse.
However, rules of this site prohibit postings that lead others to feel accused or put down.
Posted by 10derHeart on April 11, 2005, at 21:40:23
In reply to Dr. Hsiung: Please deal with this, posted by used2b on April 11, 2005, at 20:12:06
My take on that post was that because Mark made a point to describe it as an "awful joke," he was in no way making fun of sexual abuse. In fact, when someone decides to mention hearing a joke of this sort to me, but first *warns* me it's *awful* (or another synonym for awful) I always give the benefit of the doubt that they do NOT think said joke is at all funny - thus the need for the warning.
Of course, I suppose Mark could have chosen not to post any reference to the joke at all - in an abundance of caution. Because I do see how a person could be upset just by reading it, and perhaps this is the case here.
In my opinion, Mark H. would NEVER "make fun" of sexual abuse. Never. Knowing Mark's reputation in this community, intent could be a very important factor in this being deemed uncivil or not.
I can't see how it would violate the rules here for you to tell Mark H. this post made you feel put down, or however you'd phrase it, as long as you make a good faith effort to be civil yourself. Posters here have been known to apologize immediately - once they're aware of the negative effect of something they've posted.
In fact, I'm pretty sure Dr. Bob encourages this kind of dialog between posters, whenever possible, before he needs to step in...
But, I guess since you asked Mark H. not to post to you any more in another thread, that's not going to be possible. Unfortunate.
Posted by used2b on April 11, 2005, at 22:35:44
In reply to Re: Dr. Hsiung: Please deal with this » used2b, posted by 10derHeart on April 11, 2005, at 21:40:23
I don't understand how describing a joke as awful makes it any less awful to tell. When are casual, light-hearted references to partially disrobed children in the context of a molestation trial not potentially offensive, vulgar or obscene?
> Knowing Mark's reputation in this community, intent could be a very important factor in this being deemed uncivil or not.
What does reputation and intent have to do with it? Nowhere in the site guidelines do I find references to reputation or intent; the rules only refer to effect.
>
> I can't see how it would violate the rules here for you to tell Mark H. this post made you feel put down, or however you'd phrase it, as long as you make a good faith effort to be civil yourself.My review of old threads suggests otherwise. I'm making a good faith effort right now. We'll see how far it gets me.
>
> In fact, I'm pretty sure Dr. Bob encourages this kind of dialog between posters, whenever possible, before he needs to step in...
>
> But, I guess since you asked Mark H. not to post to you any more in another thread, that's not going to be possible.
>
How many times to I need to ask not to be symbolically touched before symbolically touching me is no longer a legitimate joke? To what extent am I, or the community, likely to benefit by my discussing sexual humor with a person who attempted humor by posting symbolic affection in response to my specific statements about my discomfort with symbolic affection?> Unfortunate.
I feel something not so nice when you say my decision to ask someone not to post to me is "unfortunate".
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 11, 2005, at 22:50:40
In reply to Re: Dr. Hsiung: Please deal with this » used2b, posted by 10derHeart on April 11, 2005, at 21:40:23
10derheart,
You wrote,[...Mark made it a point to...as an "awful joke"...]and,[...he was {in no way} making fun of sexual abuse...].
Mark wrote that the joke was awful. But the phrase that you use,{in no way}, could have the potential,IMO, that some people could think that you are making a conclusion of absoluteness, being the use of {no way}.
But I have been in situations where another would say that what they were going to say is a bad joke and proceed to tell an antisemitic joke. I asked them why they told the joke if they knew that it was a bad joke. They responded to me that it was funny. I responded to them that I did not think that it was funny. Now if someone was to write a joke here, and even if they were to say that the following is a ,let's say, a joke about racial sterotypes, could the joke be written if they write that it is an awful joke before they write it?
Lou PIlder
Posted by 10derHeart on April 11, 2005, at 23:30:35
In reply to Re: Dr. Hsiung: Please deal with this » 10derHeart, posted by used2b on April 11, 2005, at 22:35:44
> I don't understand how describing a joke as awful makes it any less awful to tell. When are casual, light-hearted references to partially disrobed children in the context of a molestation trial not potentially offensive, vulgar or obscene?
For me, particularly because it was coming from Mark H., I made an immediate distinction between him mentioning he heard such a joke (and indicating he didn't like it,) and him "telling" the joke. I admit it's a distinction I wouldn't make, every time, for every person, in every circumstance. For example, Lou makes a good point in his post about my post, in bringing up various other types of "off color" jokes. Lou makes me pause and think about what I said, and where the lines would be drawn. And so do you, BTW.
I guess for ME, there is some grey area. I'd hope there would be times where I could feel free to relate to a friend (and they to me), ANY kind of joke I'd heard, so I could let them know the joke existed, and that it disgusted me, or offended me, or shocked me, or whatever. Telling the words of a joke, in that context, isn't the same - to ME - as just *telling* the joke to get a reaction or laugh. If that friend wanted to call me on it, as being hypocritical, maybe that's a good thing. I'd have to really examine my motivation and need to mention the joke, and hopefully I'd learn something.
As I said, it may have been unwise for Mark H. to even post such a thing here. I concede that absolutely. I'm just saying, considering all I've observed about the poster, as well as the context of the thread and the rest of his post, I didn't have the same reaction you did. I didn't mean this as a "free pass" for everyone on Babble to post any sort of joke as long as they said it was "awful" first. It's usually going to be more complicated than that, I think.
>>I'm making a good faith effort right now. We'll see how far it gets me.Well, FWIW, I don't find you uncivil right now.
> > Unfortunate.
>
> I feel something not so nice when you say my decision to ask someone not to post to me is "unfortunate".I'm sorry you felt that way. Nothing "not so nice" was intended. You have every right to ask anyone not to post to you. I think you may have misunderstood, which is my fault for poor construction in my writing. I was trying to express that I really like seeing two posters work things out. And that it's sort of sad (to ME) when that can't happen - for any reason.
Posted by used2b on April 12, 2005, at 0:52:29
In reply to Re: Dr. Hsiung: Please deal with this » used2b, posted by 10derHeart on April 11, 2005, at 23:30:35
I would like to say I am reassured that you are able to see other points of view, but it is consistent with my expectations. Otherwise, I wouldn't bother.
Suffice it to say I have seen hatred blossom to violence, and I've seen off-color humor simmer into sexual assault. In some cases, the perpetrators were reputable community leaders.
Though I don't suggest anyone here is attempting anything so untoward, sexual humor is sometimes used to groom or to select victims of assault, and other times as an element of promiscuous seduction. I also know something about critical public presentation of untoward humor. It doesn't seldom take the form of "This is awful but ..." Critical presentation usually includes more than simple repetition of the "awful" humor.
I agree it would be constructive to have friends with whom one could discuss difficult topics freely. But we are repeatedly told guidelines at this forum are not about feeling or thinking freely, they are about posting what the admin thinks is best for "the group." I disagree with the concept, and the only thing I especially like about his board is that there are not boxes around the posts, but it suits my purposes to comply with the terms of service. That might be why my posts appear civil to you.
Posted by used2b on April 12, 2005, at 12:18:01
In reply to Dr. Hsiung: Please deal with this, posted by used2b on April 11, 2005, at 20:12:06
There are two problems with this post. One is the humor. The other is the diagnosis. If my name were to appear in the news, would members of this group be allowed to post their opinions of my mental health?
To what extent can personal opinions be posted here abut the mental health of any person not a member of the group?
Posted by Mark H. on April 12, 2005, at 12:19:17
In reply to Re: Dr. Hsiung: Please deal with this » 10derHeart, posted by used2b on April 12, 2005, at 0:52:29
I made two mistakes in posting yesterday, and unfortunately they impacted the same person (and others as well). I wish I could take them back and start over, but it is too late for that.
I spent a long night thinking of little else. Part of that time I was trying to justify to myself that what I had written was OK, but in the end I had to face the fact that I was simply wrong.
I sincerely apologize to everyone who was adversely affected, and I will strive not to make those mistakes again.
Mark H.
Posted by AuntieMel on April 12, 2005, at 13:01:09
In reply to I Made Two Mistakes Yesterday, posted by Mark H. on April 12, 2005, at 12:19:17
Just so you know, I personally wasn't bothered by anything you wrote yesterday.
But it takes a big person to even consider the possiblility of a mistake, much less conclude that he/she actually did.
You've come a long way, baby.
Posted by used2b on April 12, 2005, at 22:02:23
In reply to I Made Two Mistakes Yesterday, posted by Mark H. on April 12, 2005, at 12:19:17
>
> I sincerely apologize to everyone who was adversely affected, and I will strive not to make those mistakes again.
>
> Mark H.I appreciate apology as a sometimes useful social device, Mark, but I am primarily interested in the circumstances that led to these events. My experience with apologies is tainted by my familiarity with cycles of domestic violence.
Health professionals should at least be sensitized to the environment surrounding sexual abuse. But my experience here as been that discussion of social pretense is prohibited, while administrative deputies sometimes feel at liberty to joke about little boys with their pants half down, in the context of an abuse trial. I suspect you would not have made those statements were this a forum dominated by mature, rational dialogue. It is not. It is a touchy feely place where authority dictates who feels what in the context of the corpus.
Social pretense is a critical element of seduction. Seduction is a key element of much sexual abuse of children. Sexual and physical abuse of children trains them to become members of an selfish, authoritarian society in which life is reduced to a commodity. This psychiatrist is not helping cure diseases; he is perpetuating diseases by constructing rationale for social pretenses that facilitate abuse.
Having seen the site owner "make a pass" through the site without addressing this serious concern about sexual humor related to pedophilia, I am shifting to a more combative stance appropriate for confronting social contagion.
Since you seem so troubled by the circumstance, I will consent for you to reply to this username, but it will be in vain. I plan to no longer use this username in any pretense that this is a civil environment. It is a hostile environment. This is not a forum where rational discourse about human psychology is tolerated.
Posted by AuntieMel on April 13, 2005, at 12:57:38
In reply to Re: I Made Two Mistakes Yesterday » Mark H., posted by used2b on April 12, 2005, at 22:02:23
Sometimes an apology is really just an apology. An admission of wrong, not to be meant as a way to an end.
I think Mark's apology is in that category.
I'm also real curious what you meant by "I am shifting to a more combative stance appropriate for confronting social contagion." What should we expect?
Posted by gardenergirl on April 13, 2005, at 16:05:29
In reply to Sometimes » used2b, posted by AuntieMel on April 13, 2005, at 12:57:38
Posted by used2b on April 13, 2005, at 23:02:58
In reply to Sometimes » used2b, posted by AuntieMel on April 13, 2005, at 12:57:38
> Sometimes an apology is really just an apology. An admission of wrong, not to be meant as a way to an end.
>
> I think Mark's apology is in that category.
Most likely, and I don't want to categorize him among either violent household members or among sexually aggresive people. But neither do I want to get back to where I didn't want to go in the first place, by hugging and making up.I f-up often. If I accidentally step on somebody's fresh-poured concrete, I apologize and maybe do what I can to fix the pour. But if I intentionally slap someone in the face for no good reason (i.e. not in self-defense) I do the other part of what he did - I try to discover for myself and for the well-being of those around me why I did what I did. At my best, I try to demonstrate and learn from my sorrow, but I don't use it as a cleaning device to erase what I did.
There are things I've done in political conflict I regret, but I did them for a reason. If I'm never invited back because of the stances I took, that's what it cost me. I hope I learned something.
I checked some of Mark's posts and he is one of the most balanced people I see on this board. His delima that day reminded me of what some soldiers in Iraq have to face. They are well-intended mature, even self-sacrificing people granted deadly authority with no reliable guidance on how to use it. After a while, things they would never have dreamed of seem like part of the job when in fact, they are just wrong. Fortunately for us and for Mark, it was easier for him to sort it out.
> I'm also real curious what you meant by "I am shifting to a more combative stance appropriate for confronting social contagion." What should we expect?Impugning rhetoric. Unusually high-quality rhetoric for what you pay, I might add.
Posted by AuntieMel on April 14, 2005, at 9:48:58
In reply to Re: Sometimes » AuntieMel, posted by used2b on April 13, 2005, at 23:02:58
No one is asking you to hug and make up, certainly not me - one of the least huggy people you'll ever meet.
But a sincere apology (my opinion again - I seem to be full of opinion today) should pave the way towards a return to normalcy.
And if it matters, no one is 'never invited back.' If you can get past the huggy bits you will probably find the group here to be kind, forgiving and genuinely interested in other points of view.
But you might also find that we actually like our civility rules as keeping within those guidelines enables us to talk about many points of view without it degenerating into a spitting match.
If you stay, you will adjust. And you might grow to like it yourself. Maybe.
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 14, 2005, at 18:01:30
In reply to Re: I Made Two Mistakes Yesterday » Mark H., posted by used2b on April 12, 2005, at 22:02:23
> he is perpetuating diseases
Please don’t post anything that could lead others to feel accused. I asked you to be civil before, so now I’m going to block you from posting for a week.
If you or others have questions about this or about posting policies in general, or are interested in alternative ways of expressing yourself, please see the FAQ:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
Follow-ups regarding these issues, as well as replies to the above post, should of course themselves be civil.
Thanks,
Bob
Posted by 10derHeart on April 14, 2005, at 23:26:38
In reply to Re: Sometimes, posted by AuntieMel on April 14, 2005, at 9:48:58
>>from those under his control, as you seem to be.
So...what's it like, exactly, to be under Dr. Bob's control? I never knew....just never knew....so glad I've been enlightened.
(I will quit now, I swear. I will)
Posted by gardenergirl on April 14, 2005, at 23:43:47
In reply to Hey there Mel, my brainwashed buddy... » AuntieMel, posted by 10derHeart on April 14, 2005, at 23:26:38
Resistance is futile. ;)
gg
Posted by 10derHeart on April 15, 2005, at 0:58:48
In reply to We are Babble. We have been assimilated. » 10derHeart, posted by gardenergirl on April 14, 2005, at 23:43:47
Hah..great minds think alike, see here...
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050323/msgs/484407.html
Posted by gardenergirl on April 15, 2005, at 1:07:19
In reply to Re: We are Babble. We have been assimilated. » gardenergirl, posted by 10derHeart on April 15, 2005, at 0:58:48
Yeah, I saw that later as I kept reading down the page. Shouldn't have napped, I guess. :)
gg
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Administration | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.