Thread replies: 4
Thread images: 1
Thread images: 1
File: 18835969_1905194476163956_5547419063239860141_n.jpg (60KB, 705x891px) Image search:
[Google]
60KB, 705x891px
Can anyone knowledgeable in psychiatry (or general therapy practice, not looking for psychological theory) explain: what's the benefit of content warnings for things that are not in themselves traumatic? I can understand that explicit images and descriptions of rape, gore, or domestic violence can be triggering to certain PTSD sufferers, and that it isn't necessary to confront such aversions in order to treat the disorder (I was treated for PTSD with non-confrontational therapy). In the case of "associations", however-- where objects and ideas that are much more common than sources of trauma themselves supposedly trigger some PTSD patients-- wouldn't it be problematic to completely avoid "the simpsons" or "exposed collarbones" (as in this example) for the duration of one's treatment? Are such warnings valid at all in the context of PTSD, or are they the result of self-diagnosis and failure to create a proper recovery plan?
>>
>>8959132
something tells me that this is probably a fucking joke, anon.
>>
>>8959337
I was on cool freaks Wikipedia club on facebook for a hot minute. It was a safe space group, and I assure you this is not a joke. You post an article about Australia, you have to post a TW for colonialism, for example. Not giving a TW for birds was an instant ban.
>>
>>8959371
you're definitely not doing a good job of convincing me this isn't satire, in fact you're convincing me further
Thread posts: 4
Thread images: 1
Thread images: 1