As a sexual abuse survivor, I want to thank you for what this courageous post means to people like me. I also want to make the broader point that epistemic integrity is beneficial in so many unpredictable ways that it should be highly valued even in emotionally sensitive topics.
First I want to say that I think the dynamics of isolated incidents of rape, sexual assault and harassment are different from being a victim of all these things constantly over many years, and I don’t claim to speak for victims of the former. Also, even though I think my experience gives me a good understanding of dynamics of sexual abuse that apply to many people who don’t feel as comfortable speaking about it as me, I recognize that different victims and people at different stages of recovery from me probably feel differently .
I read the Time article much the way you did; It was generally too vague to give a good idea of how common sexual misconduct is in EA. It often referred to incidents that could have been terrible, or could have been fine. It just didn’t give us enough data to decide for ourselves. Instead it expected us to assume the most terrible version of the story was true. It means that we need to look carefully at our community to figure out whether we are doing worse than other communities, but it is not by itself proof of that.
When you are a victim of long term sexual abuse, you initially have a very poor understanding of appropriate gender relations. I’ve worked hard to develop normal expectations, and the doctor I’ve been seeing for the PTSD believes I would be successful in future relationships because my expectations are essentially those of a person who has not been a victim of sexual abuse. I feel the public response of EA has previously usually been to assume the worst possible scenarios in the Time article’s examples happened. This has made me worry that I’m practically the only one with this response to the article, which would likely mean my doctor is wrong and my understanding of appropriate gender relations is still too poor to resume dating. If you hadn’t posted this and the post hadn’t gotten so much support, I would still be doubting myself inappropriately and putting off dating for this reason.
The world is a complicated place that our models are often wrong about. People have been critical of this kind of take because they believe it harms sexual abuse survivors, but my experience has been different. There are likely all sorts of examples like this in every situation where epistemic integrity must be balanced against being sensitive to the needs of people who have experienced terrible things. I hope sharing my experience has updated people a little in favor of pursuing epistemic integrity even when it makes them feel uncomfortable.
As a sexual abuse survivor, I want to thank you for what this courageous post means to people like me. I also want to make the broader point that epistemic integrity is beneficial in so many unpredictable ways that it should be highly valued even in emotionally sensitive topics.
First I want to say that I think the dynamics of isolated incidents of rape, sexual assault and harassment are different from being a victim of all these things constantly over many years, and I don’t claim to speak for victims of the former. Also, even though I think my experience gives me a good understanding of dynamics of sexual abuse that apply to many people who don’t feel as comfortable speaking about it as me, I recognize that different victims and people at different stages of recovery from me probably feel differently .
I read the Time article much the way you did; It was generally too vague to give a good idea of how common sexual misconduct is in EA. It often referred to incidents that could have been terrible, or could have been fine. It just didn’t give us enough data to decide for ourselves. Instead it expected us to assume the most terrible version of the story was true. It means that we need to look carefully at our community to figure out whether we are doing worse than other communities, but it is not by itself proof of that.
When you are a victim of long term sexual abuse, you initially have a very poor understanding of appropriate gender relations. I’ve worked hard to develop normal expectations, and the doctor I’ve been seeing for the PTSD believes I would be successful in future relationships because my expectations are essentially those of a person who has not been a victim of sexual abuse. I feel the public response of EA has previously usually been to assume the worst possible scenarios in the Time article’s examples happened. This has made me worry that I’m practically the only one with this response to the article, which would likely mean my doctor is wrong and my understanding of appropriate gender relations is still too poor to resume dating. If you hadn’t posted this and the post hadn’t gotten so much support, I would still be doubting myself inappropriately and putting off dating for this reason.
The world is a complicated place that our models are often wrong about. People have been critical of this kind of take because they believe it harms sexual abuse survivors, but my experience has been different. There are likely all sorts of examples like this in every situation where epistemic integrity must be balanced against being sensitive to the needs of people who have experienced terrible things. I hope sharing my experience has updated people a little in favor of pursuing epistemic integrity even when it makes them feel uncomfortable.