Humanities desk
< June 5	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 7 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

June 6

People who look like their distant ancestors

File:EmanueleFilibertodiSavoia.jpg

A true Habsburg descendant here

I came across the article on Archduke Johann Salvator of Austria and it says he resembled his ancestor Ferdinand II of Aragon and Charles the Bold. This is really interesting and I was wondering if anybody know any other individuals who resemble their distant ancestor.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 06:07, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How distant do you want? I'm looking at a photo taken in 1880 of my 2x great grandmother, and it's like looking in a mirror! There is a theory (suspect it's a bit of a folk tale) that physical likeness recurs every 3 generations. Of course, us lesser mortals won't be able to go back past the invention and popularisation of photography to check likenesses. --TammyMoet (talk) 08:22, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I look like my great grandpa and that as far as I can go. It is weird how genes work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.116.113.157 (talk) 09:27, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have you seen Prince Emanuele Filiberto, Prince of Venice and Piedmont and his distinctive Habsburg jaw? Then there's his dad with the thick Bourbon lower lip! No changeling stories in the House of Savoy that's for sure!!!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:55, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There should be an article page on Genetics in Wikipedia. Borus Johnson, Mayor of London, may look like his ancestory in Europe, traced to a Royal Family. I think the same family. MacOfJesus (talk) 15:11, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We do have an article on genetics... --Tango (talk) 15:30, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is, of course, completely a folk tale. There is no way genes can recur every 3 generations, they just don't work like that. --Tango (talk) 15:30, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

_{Did I say "genes"? No I said "physical likeness". Yes I know it's related to genes, but don't misquote me.} --TammyMoet (talk) 16:33, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any quotation marks in my comment... --Tango (talk) 20:19, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There was a really interesting observation I once saw, that adopted children often found they looked more like their same-sex genetic parents (women more like their mothers, men more like their fathers) than children raised by their genetic parents. There was some discussion of children trying to avoid 'being' their parents (I know I try not to dress like my mother): without that effect, they chose clothes, styles and makeup that suited them and reflected what they liked, without avoiding the whole area of styles and colours their mother chose. This meant that adopted children were more likely to dress and style themselves in a similar fashion to their genetic parents, leading to this weird effect where a daughter adopted at birth looks more like her genetic mother than a daughter not adopted. I can see how a similar effect would lead to the observation that grand-daughters looked more like their grandmothers (when young) than their mothers. 86.164.69.239 (talk) 18:55, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a lot of inbreeding in royal families, which increases the likelihood of such similarities. I think it is probably related to how we recognise faces - there have been studies on this and they find that they are a few particular characteristics that we use. If those characteristics are the same between two people, we'll think they look the same. If those characteristics have a simple genetic origin (particularly if the version the two people in question have is recessive - if it is dominant then your parent will also look the same, by necessity, and people wouldn't find that as interesting), then there is always a chance that descendants will end up with the same combination of genes. --Tango (talk) 15:30, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect time travel, or in Johann Salvator's case, a Highlander situation. Lost at sea indeed... TastyCakes (talk) 15:40, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah but there is a difference between resembling in one trait and having a complete striking resemblance like Johann Salvator's case. People not of the House of Habsburg can have Prognathism or the Habsburg jaw.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 19:48, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Emanuel-Philibert clearly resembles his Habsburg ancestors, in more than one aspect; however, what you're asking is whether someone can be almost a double to his or her ancestor. I'd say it's possible, seeing as total strangers can look alike.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:53, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

George W.Bush is related to Franklin Pierce, and there seems to be a family resemblance. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:29, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When I said there should be a an article page in Wikipedia on Genetics, I meant that the OP may look to see it and observe the formulae for working out the likelihood of likeness in generations. I was not doubting that there was such an article. I see myself as pointing towards the sources so the OP can do the research. MacOfJesus (talk) 23:08, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than using such ambiguous phrasing, it would have been clearer to everyone if you had (i) checked to see if there was a Genetics article and (ii) made your mention of it a link the way I just did :-) . 87.81.230.195 (talk) 01:38, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would rather get the OP to do that, as if they get that far they are more likely to follow-it-through. The formulae for working out the likelihood of likeness in generations, hopefully, the OP has discovered them by now. MacOfJesus (talk) 16:08, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"X is just a tool; it's value/morality depends on how it is used"

I have seen this argument proffered many times (where x = weapons, the internet, intelligence etc.). I would like to read an examination/debate of the meta-argument, if such a thing exists. 86.45.130.146 (talk) 09:31, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's the famous NRA slogan "Guns don't kill people, people do", but we don't seem to have much about it on Wikipedia that I can find... AnonMoos (talk) 13:42, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy has an article on the philosophy of technology, which includes a section on such issues; subsection 3.3.1 addresses the moral neutrality of technology in particular. There are links to interesting sites at the bottom of that page.--Rallette (talk) 15:05, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about references, but when it comes to people the truth is is that objects have karma that changes in relation to the use people make of them. (This is not a physical truth - if you are a robot and have no past or future contact with humans you can't use it). People who use the argument that a tool has no morality usually do so because they are defending one with coal-black karma, that "will surely burn in hell". 85.181.145.156 (talk) 19:38, 6 June 2010 (UTC)q[reply]

To cut the argument short, let me get right to what will convince you of my viewpoint: consider the Nazi armband. Obviously you instantly realize that it is not "just a tool whose value/morality depends on how it is used" - instead it has coal black karma. You can put it - the object with coal-black karma - into an art installation, but it doesn't change it. That ojbect has terrible karma regardless of whether you use it in any way whatsoever. (again, this truth is not a physcail one - a robot having no connection with people, ever, can't use it in any way). 85.181.145.156 (talk) 19:45, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Facepalm — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:56, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're going to run into headaches if you over-generalize here. Ontologically, objects never have intrinsic moral value. An object may be designed for an immoral use, but the immorality adheres to the potential use of it, not to the object itself. However, there's a difficult distinction between objects that have physical effects and objects that have semantic effects. morally questionable objects with physical effects (torture devices, weapons of mass destruction, etc.) are generally variations of perfectly innocuous or even beneficial objects - a thumbscrew is just a variation of a carpenter's vice, a nuclear bomb just a variation on a power plant - and these things exist in the world without causing offense. even people who've seen thumbscrews in action do not generally get wigged out if you ask them to pass you a c-clamp. morally questionable semantics objects, however, are much more universalized - one cannot wear a swastika, or a pointed white hood, or even a burqa or an orange tie on saint patties day, without making an overt reference to a moral position. This does not mean, mind you, that the moral value is inherent to the object, but actually the reverse: that the object has become subsumed in the moral debate. Sometimes, in fact, semantic objects become totally divorced from their physical origins (e.g., even in this day and age, where most men do not where hats, it still makes sense to call someone a white-hat or a black-hat). --Ludwigs2 22:28, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And separate from this is the question of whether technologies have intrinsic politics. There is a lot written on this—the most widely-read is Langdon Winner's essay, Do Artifacts Have Politics? The general consensus is, "sometimes." (On the question of WMDs, Winner says: "Taking the most obvious example, the atom bomb is an inherently political artifact. As long as it exists at all, its lethal properties demand that it be controlled by a centralized, rigidly hierarchical chain of command closed to all influences that might make its workings unpredictable. The internal social system of the bomb must be authoritarian; there is no other way. The state of affairs stands as a practical necessity independent of any larger political system in which the bomb is embedded, independent of the type of regime or character of its rulers.") This approach would argue that a gun is not "just" a tool, for example—you could use it as a means to hammer in nails, but this is not what it is built for, and this is not what it is good at. A gun is a tool that shoots bullets, primarily—of course, whether shooting bullets is a desirable or undesirable thing depends very much on the context, but to say its use is completely independent of its manufacture is not terribly convincing. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:05, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

French Revolutionary Wars - Did upper class people still travel between North Wales and Transylvania in 1795?

For my Gothic novel, I do need the characters - who have a castle in Transylvania, to go on a trip there in 1795 (one of them has escaped from Revolutionary France). Did people still do this during the French Revolutionary Wars? I believe some of the German states were allies. Could they avoid going via the Netherlands? Asked this on YahooAnswers, and couldn't believe the abuse I got for not knowing the answer, but haven't been able to find much information about it. LucindaE LucindaE (talk) 09:35, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if they did - Transylvania was pretty much off the map. But sure, they could. In 1795, Transylvania was under Austro-Hungarian control, and the Dual Monarchy was more-or-less friendly to Britain. As far as I can tell, nobody in their right minds would try to go overland, though - it's much faster (if longer) to go by sea to the Black Sea cost and then travel up the Danube. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:25, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Austria-Hungary didn't exist in 1795. It was created by the Austro-Hungarian Compromise of 1867. — Kpalion^(talk) 20:45, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For alliances in 1795 see War of the First Coalition and French Revolutionary Wars: Campaigns of 1795. Wealthy Britons in the late 18th Century would often go on the Grand tour, but would have been very unlikely to go that far east. Alansplodge (talk) 13:09, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is hard to imagine upper-class Britons in the 18th century having any connection to Transylvania. The European nobility at that time was still sharply divided by religion. British nobles would have been likely to have relations mainly with the nobility in Germany (enhanced by the connections of the royal family), the Netherlands, or Scandinavia, though the French Revolution aroused sympathy for the Catholic French nobility, too. Some of the Transylvanian nobility were Protestant, but Transylvania was really a backwater of the Protestant world, with few external connections. Anyway, Stephan Schulz is absolutely right that travel between Britain and Transylvania would almost certainly be by sea, especially given British control of the Mediterranean and French control of most of the continent of Western Europe. Travelers would have had to pass through the Ottoman Empire. Fortunately, by 1795, the Ottoman Empire was at peace with the Austrian Empire as a result of the Treaty of Sistova, so it should have been possible to cross the border between Ottoman Wallachia or Moldavia and Austrian Transylvania. Marco polo (talk) 13:50, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Back in the 1970s, Virginia Coffman wrote a series of Gothic novels set in early 19th-century Transylvania. They featured an upper-class Irish girl who had been raised in an exclusive English boarding school. They are the Vampires of Moura series. I read most of them. You might want to obtain copies to see how the author handled the logistics of travel, etc.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:40, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Europe was at war. The earliest next moment for English traveling was during the Peace of Amiens, 1802.

Ambulance passenger(s)

How many people can an ordinary, everyday ambulance carry to hospital after attending (for example) an RTA. My 8 year old grandaughter asked me! (driver, medic, stretcher, one or two sitting wounded?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.100.115.19 (talk) 09:42, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm afraid I don't know the answer to your question. You might like to try our reference desk. People there can answer all sorts of general questions. This page is just for asking/answering questions about how to use Wikipedia, so you're not likely to have much luck here. --Beloved Freak 09:52, 6 June 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Moved question here from WP:help desk. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:45, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RTA = Road Traffic Accident. (presumably) 58.147.58.152 (talk) 11:05, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See ambulance. They come in all shapes and sizes, and vary from one country to another. The last time I went in an ambulance, there was room in the back for three people if they are all sitting. If the patient was lying down, it would be difficult to get more than one medic in the back. Ideally, victims of an RTA would get one ambulance each, but no doubt they could take two if necessary.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 11:42, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Usually it is one casualty to an ambulance (sometimes plus a friend/relative). I'm not sure how they usually transport walking wounded to hospital - they could take several in an ambulance, I suppose, but I'm not sure they do. Following a major incident they'll often set up a kind of field hospital and walking wounded will be treated there rather than taking them to hospital. --Tango (talk) 15:02, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For walking wounded, paramedics in some jurisdictions (British Columbia for sure) can commandeer public transit buses. They kick off the original passengers. Aaronite (talk) 16:33, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At the 7 July 2005 London bombings, Double-decker buses were used to ferry walking-wounded to hospital[1]. They have more than 60 seats Alansplodge (talk) 16:39, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the U.S., a typical ground ambulance will have a gurney secured centerline in the patient compartment, a squad bench on the curbside (passenger's side), a rearward facing EMT seat near the head of the gurney, and for Type I and III ambulances, a CPR seat on the streetside (driver's side). To be eligible for Star of Life certification, Types I and III are required to be able to carry two patients (one on the gurney and one on a backboard or folding stretcher secured to the squad bench) or four (one on the gurney and three in sitting position on the squad bench). Some, but not all, ambulances also have hooks which drop down from the ceiling of the patient compartment, above the squad bench, where a third patient secured on a backboard.—eric 19:38, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bangladeshi sovereign territory within India, and vice versa

Could anyone direct me to evidence of the below, or a list of these 106 enclaves? Found on the BBC commentary on Bangladesh vs England - sounds highly dubious, actually:

"If it carries on like this Bangladesh could end up with less runs than they have enclaves of sovereign territory within India. There are 106, as a result of a messy treaty between the Kingdom of Koch Bihar and the Mughal Empire. Some are smaller than a cricket pitch. India has 92 within Bangladesh."

AlmostCrimes (talk) 13:48, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Indo-Bangladesh enclaves. Marco polo (talk) 13:59, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that either we or the BBC have the Indian-exclaves-in-Bangladesh and Bangladeshi-exclaves-in-India numbers reversed. Deor (talk) 15:39, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...which links to this paper, that seems to be a rather comprehensive view of the subject. Jørgen (talk) 17:28, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And after looking at that PDF, it's clear that we have the numbers right and the BBC mixed them up. Deor (talk) 20:39, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hitler - Not a Typical German Surmame?

I am from Finland and I know many German surnames. I have been wondered for a long time that Hitler doesn't look like "typical" German surname. Some relatives of Adolf Hitler have used at least in the 19th century that name in forms Hiedler and Huetler. I feel that they look much more Germans. Also I think that for example Hittler with two t:s would be more "real" German style than Hitler.

As a Finnish speaking guy I feel that the form Hitler look likes more English than a German surname. Does those people who have English as their mother tongue also feel that Hitler with h, i, t, l, e and r could be in priciple an English surname like Miller and Parker?

84.231.101.87 (talk) 18:05, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John Toland says in his biography of Adolf Hitler that the surname Hitler is likely of Czech or Moravian origin.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:22, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As an English speaking gal, an English surname ending in "-er" denotes descendancy from someone who held that job. In the case of "Miller", that refers to someone who milled (i.e. operated a mill). So "Hitler" would only be an English surname if it referred to someone who "hittled" - and that's not an English word or occupation! --TammyMoet (talk) 18:38, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[edit conflict] As a native English speaker, "Hitler" does not feel like a native English name. (If anything, to me it conveys a Yiddish impression.) Native English names ending in -er are almost always the names of (historic) occupations such as Miller, Cooper, Parker, and Cutler. I guess Hitler does have the same kind of shape as a word such as Cutler, but I know what a cutler is (or was). The word hitler is alien to English. Marco polo (talk) 18:43, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I note that cutlers don't cuttle, and butlers don't buttle. (Instead, they handle cutlery and bottles.) Cutler is from French coutelier, and Butler is from boteillier. On the basis that two data points make a trend, Hitler could have come from hôtelier. It didn't, but it could have. ("Hutler" seems more likely.) 213.122.43.84 (talk) 06:35, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a hitler would be a person who likes to hit... or would it be a hitter... I don't know. My mother tongue is Finnish.84.231.101.87 (talk) 18:46, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bearing in mind Hitler's Austrian birth, I'd say a Czech or Moravian origin for his surname is far more likely than English.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:50, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Hitler" does not sound typically English. It sounds Germanic or Jewish, as do numerous other "Consonant +itler" names to be found on Google, such as "Gitler," which was the pronunciation of Hitler in some of the invaded Soviet territory. A double "t" seems more common than a single one, like "Joseph Sittler." "Whittler" would ((wood)) sound English. Edison (talk) 21:06, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe "Hitler" was a surname found among Jews from Galicia, Poland. There are several Hitlers in a memorial book of Holocaust victims from Strzyżów. Needless to say, it's doubtful many Jewish families today have kept the name. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 21:57, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From German Names by Hans Bahlow:

Hitler (Aust.) see Hiedler (questionable). Cf. (Hüttler like Hüttner: Hittner).
Hi(e)dl (freq. in Munich): Bavarian word for "a stream that dries up temporarily", hence Hi(e)dler.

--151.51.51.194 (talk) 11:46, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adolf's father, Alois Hitler, was illigitimate, but took the surname of Johann Georg Hiedler who married his mother when Alois was 5 years old. The name Hitler seems to have been the product of a bureaucratic spelling mistake? Alansplodge (talk) 13:17, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There was also a Hiedler in his mother's family.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:21, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Hitler family. Alansplodge (talk) 14:45, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dunno if you can do the same in other countries, but for France you can look for the current distribution of a surname at http://www.pagesjaunes.fr/trouverunnom/RecherchePagesBlanchesExpress.do?portail=PJ (surname is "nom" in French). Interestingly enough, the mapping of the results (top right of the page) for "Hitler" show greater concentrations of this surname to be located in Alsace, the (partly) germanophone region of France. So this could vouch for the "germanity" of the surnam "Hitler". However, the spelling seems to be always Hittler with two Ts and not Hitler. --Alþykkr (talk) 00:59, 8 June 2010 (UTC) I suppose that any two syllable name with an -er ending does sound vaguely English. But the same things make it vaguely German. Miller is a fairly common English name but the German version, Müller, is the most common German name of all according to our article. Seven of the top eight names on the list have -er endings actually. --JGGardiner (talk) 02:13, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Supreme Court

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/wire/sc-dc-court-miranda-20100601,0,6330569.story

This article talks about the case, but it never gives its name. --75.25.103.109 (talk) 22:21, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Berghuis v. Thompkins. See also [2]. Good times for U.S. police. Buddy431 (talk) 22:31, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Berghuis v. Thompkins

The Supreme Court ruled that you must specifically state that you invoke your Miranda rights, but doesn't talking at all automatically waive those rights? --75.25.103.109 (talk) 23:17, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably not according to SCOTUS. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:02, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can't you invoke your rights at any time? I always thought that you could start spilling your guts, and then just suddenly invoke your right to remain silent and end an interview at that point. Incidentally, our Miranda warning article seems to have been edited in response, and not very well. It now asserts that cops don't have to read the Miranda warning; I thought that they still did, and that it just now requires someone to unambiguously invoke the right for the right to go into effect. I'm no expert on US law, though. Buddy431 (talk) 00:29, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the U.S. you only need to be read your rights when giving self-incriminating testimony. Police can arrest you without reading you your rights, if they have no interest in using your statements against you, AND they can question you without reading you your rights, for example if you are being asked for statements regarding a third party. The only time Miranda rights become relevent is when you are being questioned regarding the legality of your own actions, in regards for future prosecution against you. The "TV-show" image we have of officers "reading the rights" to people who are arrested doesn't really happen in real life; most of the time Miranda rights are read at the precinct prior to formal recorded questioning of a suspect, and is not read to people at the time of their arrest. Furthermore, "invoking" ones right against self-incrimination merely means that you don't have to answer questions about yourself regarding whether or not you commited a crime, or details regarding the alleged crime. The issue in the one case cited above was whether or not a suspect, having been read his rights, had to specifically request that police stop their interrogation. The suspect in this case made no specific request, so the police are free to continue to ask questions until they do so. Its a small point on the larger issue of one's Fifth Ammendment rights, and probably will not have a dramatic impact on police interrogations. --Jayron32 03:34, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

People have the right to remain silent under questioning that might incriminate them (with occasional exceptions). They don't have to remain silent, but they can if they wish. So "Miranda" is much more about the duty of the police to make sure up front that the suspect is aware they have that right, in case they want to be silent. This case refines past Miranda cases by addressing when and at what point a suspect who knows they have the right to silence, is said to have begun to rely on that right, vs. when they were aware of the right but did not choose to rely on it. The right to silence is more profoundly, the right to not be forced to self-incriminate, although expecting them to speak to confirm they wish to rely on a right of silence does seem counter-intuitive. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 13:43, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Effects of child sexual abuse

There's recent-ish (last few years) research on this that sounds interesting. But it's a heated area with very strong views. I'm hoping that posting a question here will avoid most POV disputes and vested views. This is a quick summary of the research finding as I understand them:

Actual handling, perceptions, impact and consequences of child sexual abuse do not correlate well with existing models.
- Most research has asked about how people felt, without distinguishing how they felt at the time, and how their perception changed subsequently over time.
- The underlying incident(s) are often reprocessed in light of later cognitive and developmental understanding.
- When asked, many child sexual abuse victims report not having felt so bad at the time; the trauma developed as they processed it.
In cases where force and harm were apparent at the time:
- The child knew wrong was being done.
- The matter was unambiguous and the child could later know for sure they had said no, fought, and been unambiguously forced or overwhelmed by physical force against vocal and physical protest.
- However traumatic, the child could self-reassure they had done what they could, had it forced upon them, and tried to prevent it.
But for cases where the adult was persuasive or the child coaxed to see it as attention/gifts/"feeling special"/"playing a game" etc, where the adult obtained abuse by guile, coaxing, and deception, rather than brute force, the consequences were different:
- The child re-assessed the incident, often years later, in light of increased awareness, and only then truly realized they had been advantage taken, betrayed by a trusted (often close) adult, or a "sexual incident" had taken place.
- This betrayal was often then shattering. It called into question in their mind, assumptions about themself, about their own complicity, about their ability to take care of themself, about the trust that can be placed in the world, how they know what to believe, deep-rooted suspicion of others and their motives (including difficulty establishing intimacy), and other similar deep psychological schisms.
- It was then made much more shattering because in trying to make sense of it, they may compare themself to the cultural narrative - which states child abuse victims are usually scared, upset and traumatized and tried to fight at the time - creating an unwarranted burden of immense guilt that other children resist but (in their own memory) they did not, therefore it must be their fault or something wrong with them.
- There is a powerful emotion of shame in having been duped and made to do things one later massively regrets or which one feels were obtained by transparent (in hindsight) deceit - playing upon previous trust, innocence and naivety. It often leads to internalizing blame ("If I hadn't..."), invalidity as a person, or worthlessness.
The study's conclusion seems to be:
- Differentiation of feelings as a child at the time, and feelings evolving after
- Emphasis needs to be made on reassuring child sexual abuse victims along the lines of "children don't know enough to say no" to adults who present in a guileful manipulative manner.
- The belief that child sexual abuse is by definition traumatizing at the time (called "the trauma myth" by the author) is mistaken and harmful because it does not correlate to studies of victims, it does not allow for reprocessing in the light of more mature knowledge and societal understandings, and because it can cause victims to later compare themselves to a myth that is far from universal, and encourages severe self-blame and internalization, where much of the traumatization can (or may) take place.

The book is The Trauma Myth: The Truth About the Sexual Abuse of Children and Its Aftermath (Clancy, S.).

My question is, to what extent is this model mainstream, "fringe", gained mainstream notice as a viable model, what is its due WP:WEIGHT, etc? For this sensitive a topic I would be interested in hearing views from users who are informed, but a bit away from the "coal face" of such articles and POV wars if any. Not planning to edit the topic, but for example - is the book or model notable? Is the above summary an accurate representation of the views in it? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 22:30, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if it will answer your question but the book you quote makes me think of another (which I have only just begun to read): The Harmony of Illusions: Inventing Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. The author's main idea (as far as I have read) is that PTSD is also somewhat a "myth" (or "illusion") created not out of the trauma itself but out of an interaction between patients/victims, psychiatrists, and society. He however takes great care to assert that while PTSD is a "construction", it makes it no less real and harmful for those who are affected by it. Perhaps you'd be interested in reading this book, as post-rape trauma can be seen (AFAIK) as a form of PTSD (at least in some cases). At least in the case of The Harmony of Illusion, it seems to have been approved by a number of serious institutions (even though the question of the origin of PTSD is still debated). --Alþykkr (talk) 00:50, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]