Emma's Journey with Dissociative Identity Disorder
IMG_6643.png

BLOG

Guest: Lynn Crook, M.Ed.

This week we welcomed Lynn Crook, M.Ed., on the podcast:

IMG_20180207_083612430.jpg

Lynn Crook, M.Ed., has a Master’s Degree in Educational Psychology from the University of Washington (1970).

Lynn was herself a therapist when she recovered memories of childhood sexual abuse.

Lynn Crook, MEd, successfully sued her parents for damages in 1994, based on a corroborated claim of childhood sexual abuse.

She was one of the first to sue parents for abuse, just as the Memory Wars of the 90’s were beginning to unfold.

Elizabeth Loftus, the professor who led the “Lost in the Mall Study” was paid to testify in the trail as an “expert witness” against Lynn’s case in the trial.

Lynn’s own research into those transcripts and then the study itself began her advocacy work for other survivors.

Crook reports that Loftus, who testified for the defense in Crook’s trial, misrepresented Crook’s case to the media. 

Crook filed an ethics complaint with the APA, and Loftus resigned. 

After discovering that the lost-in-a-mall study results had been misrepresented,  Crook presented her findings at conferences in the U.S., Canada, Great Britain and at the United Nations.  She has appeared in two documentaries--  “Memory” by Korean Broadcasting System, and “Am I Crazy? My journey to determine if my memories are true” by filmmaker Mary Knight.  Crook is completing her investigative memoir,  FALSE MEMORIES – The Rest of the Story.  The book documents the history of a $7M false memory PR campaign by run by accused parents who harassed critics and subjected adult survivors to gaslighting.    

Lynn is an editor emeritus of Treating Abuse Today.

She offers THIS timeline for a brief overview of these incidents she describes in the podcast episode. Links and citations are included there for each statement.

You can read the Wikipedia entry on the “Lost in the Mall Study” HERE, including about the ongoing controversy regarding the failure of the study despite its continued citation in mainstream media and other court cases.

Emma Sunshaw
Guest: Laura Brown, PhD
happy end of nidan.jpg

Laura S. Brown, Ph.D. is a clinical and forensic psychologist in independent practice in Seattle, Washington. A speaker and author on feminist therapy theory and practice, she offers workshops and trainings to professionals and the public on such topics as trauma treatment, cultural competence, psychological assessment, and ethics.

Dr. Brown grew up in Cleveland Heights, Ohio where she first became active in movements for social justice that have shaped the direction of her life’s work. Choosing a career in psychology over one as a vocalist, she received a B.A cum laude in 1972 from Case Western Reserve University, and a Ph.D. in Clinical Psychology from Southern Illinois University at Carbondale in 1977. She completed a predoctoral internship in Clinical Psychology at the Seattle Veteran’s Administration Medical Center.

Dr. Brown has served on the faculties of Southern Illinois University, the University of Washington, and the Washington School of Professional Psychology, and has taught and lectured through the U.S., Canada, Europe, Australia, Taiwan and Israel. In the early 1980s she hosted one of the first radio call-in shows by a psychologist.

The bulk of her scholarly work has been in the fields of feminist therapy theory, trauma treatment, lesbian and gay issues, assessment and diagnosis, ethics and standards of care in psychotherapy, and cultural competence. She has authored or edited fourteen professional books including the award-winning Subversive Dialogues: Theory in Feminist Therapy as well as more than 150 other professional publications, and has been featured in six psychotherapy training videos.

A full list of her written work is HERE.

Her written work about Feminist Therapy is HERE.

She is also the author of two books for survivors:

Not the price of admission: Healthy relationships after childhood trauma

Your turn for care: Surviving the aging and death of the adults who harmed you

You can read more about Dr. Laura Brown and her work on her website HERE.

Call for Coders

Melissa C. Water is part of “The Bag System” and is working toward creating a desktop application for assisting communication in Dissociative Identity Disorder systems. She has fully designed the concept behind the app’s features and options. The website where you can find the video with the detailed mock-up of the app can be found at multipliedbyone.com.

If you are available to donate time to coding the app, please contact Melissa directly at contact@multipliedbyone.com.

Melissa has been recently diagnosed with DID and has spoken of this on her YouTube channels, “Idranktheseawater” and “Coming Inside Out.” Melissa has been on radio shows, podcasts, spoken at conferences, and has been a guest on Canadian Television documentaries on the topic of Tourette syndrome, for which she advocates. The shows were “Employable Me,” and “You Can’t Ask that,”

Melissa started a movement following the trending #GetSplitOffNetflix hashtag on Twitter where rather than focusing on what we are not, we talk about our raw reality by posting about #HumanizingOurDIDTruth @OurDIDTruth

Melissa C. Water.jpeg
Guest: Veronique Mead, MD, MA

This week we welcomed Veronique to the podcast, who shared with us about trauma and chronic illness.

Veronique Mead_2019.jpg

Veronique majored in cross-cultural studies & premed for a BA at Antioch college in Yellow Springs, Ohio, where the focus was also on experiential learning. She then found a medical school with a similar emphasis on learning by doing, McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, whose mission is “to create life-long learners.” This style of learning has served her greatly in the exploration of her health and looking into factors that may have contributed to, and continue to perpetuate, her fatigue.

She attended the University of New Mexico for her Family Practice Residency, having spent her early years in Santa Fe, as it has a medical student program, and philosophy, like McMaster’s. After completing her medical training, she traveled the country doing short stints as a temp doc (locum tenens). She tested out different environments such as private, independent outpatient practices in Michigan and Rhode-Island, hospital-based clinics in Maine, the Indian Health Service in North Dakota, and an isolated clinic in the Outer Banks of North Carolina.

She then settled down as full-time faculty in a small, community-based residency training program that was just getting started, in Concord, New Hampshire, where she delivered babies, taught residents and medical students, bought her first house, and made good friends.

In 1998, she took a year off and realized that she could become more like one of her role models, Rachel Naomi Remen, MD, who works with the relationship between mind and body. She went back to school to become a somatic psychotherapist. What she learned helped make sense of her own symptoms. She got a Master’s degree at Naropa University and did specialty training in working with trauma, bonding and attachment.

Her research has taken the form of scouring the medical databases for over twenty years. She has put together new ways of making sense of  chronic illness; and finding commonalities between chronic illnesses (chronic fatigue syndrome ME/CFS, MS, diabetes (both type 1 and 2), RA, Inflammatory bowel disease, Lupus, and asthma, among others). She has also been using herself as a case study, examining and working with her symptoms and their relationships to past and present life events, and she shares these throughout her blog to validate just how much is changing in our understanding of disease and tools for healing.

  • 1986 BA Cross Cultural Studies & Pre Med – Antioch College – “learning by doing”

  • 1990 MD – McMaster University Medical School, Ontario, Canada – “how to be lifelong learners”

  • 1993 Family Physician – University of New Mexico in Albuquerque Family Practice Residency

  • 1993-1995 Family Physician Locum Tenens (short term clinical work around the USA)

  • 1995-1998 Assistant Professor – New Hampshire Dartmouth Family Practice Residency Program, teaching; obstetrics and full spectrum care;

  • 2003 MA Somatic Psychology / Body-Based Psychotherapy – Naropa University in Boulder, CO – working with the wisdom & language of the body and symptoms

  • 2000 to present: Nervous System Specialist using Somatic & Trauma Therapies

  • 2001 Training – Sensorimotor Psychotherapy (Trauma)

  • 2006+ Training – Somatic Experiencing Practitioner (Trauma)

  • 2006+ Training – Prenatal and Perinatal Professional Training (Early Trauma)

Master’s Thesis:  Mead, V. P. (2003). Somatic psychology theory and the origins of chronic illness: a case study of type 1 diabetes. Somatic Psychology. Boulder (CO), Naropa University: 427 p.

Journal Article: Mead, V. P. (2004). “A new model for understanding the role of environmental factors in the origins of chronic illness: a case study of type 1 diabetes mellitus.” Med Hypotheses 63(6): 1035-1046.

Book Chapter: Mead, V. P. (2007). Timing, Bonding, and Trauma: Applications from experience-dependent maturation and traumatic stress provide insights for understanding environmental origins of disease. Advances in Psychology Research. A. M. Columbus, Nova Science Publishers. 49: 1-80. (downloadable from bottom of free ebooks page)

Special links referenced in the podcast included:

ACEs and chronic illness
https://chronicillnesstraumastudies.com/adverse-childhood-experiences-and-chronic-illness-boyhood/

Her own story and journey with chronic illness from trauma perspectives
https://chronicillnesstraumastudies.com/how-understanding-trauma-is-making-sense-of-my-chronic-illness-and-helping-me-heal/

A list of somatic trauma therapies she recommends for healing trauma and nervous system perceptions of threat
https://chronicillnesstraumastudies.com/chronic-illness-recovery-books-on-trauma/

A list of books on trauma and chronic illness and related perspectives
https://chronicillnesstraumastudies.com/therapies-chronic-illness-stress-triggers-perception-threat/

Her blog is HERE.

Guest: Ken Benau, PhD

Our guest this week is Ken Benau, PhD.

IMG_0449.jpg

Ken Benau, Ph.D. has been a licensed psychologist for 30 years, with an independent practice in psychotherapy, consulting and training, currently in Kensington, CA (SF Bay Area).  Dr. Benau has a special interest in working with children, adolescents and adults living with various learning differences, ADHD and High Functioning Autism, as well as depression and anxiety.  Dr. Benau also works with survivors of relational or developmental trauma, all from an integrative approach to psychotherapy.  His theoretical orientations include attachment and emotion-focused, psychodynamic, experiential, somatic and Coherence Therapy.  Dr. Benau has a special interest in understanding and working with shame and pride in survivors of relational trauma, and has written several articles and is currently working on a book with that theme. 

His website is HERE.

Guest: Mark Lingington
markforresource_000.jpg

Mark Linington is an attachment-based psychoanalytic psychotherapist with The Bowlby Centre and the Clinic for Dissociative Studies in London UK.

From 2013-2018 he was Chair of the Executive Committee at The Bowlby Centre, where he continues to work as a training therapist, clinical supervisor and teacher. He worked for 12 years in the NHS as a psychotherapist with children and adults with intellectual disabilities, who experienced complex trauma and abuse. He also worked as a psychotherapist for several years at a secondary school in London for young people with special
needs, including autism, ADHD and other intellectual disabilities. He has written a number of papers and book chapters about his clinical work and presented papers on attachment theory in clinical practice at a number of conferences, including in South Korea, Hong Kong and Paris.

He is Clinical Director and CEO at the Clinic for Dissociative Studies, where he is also a specialist consultant psychotherapist and supervisor working with people with Dissociative Identity Disorder (D.I.D.). He works in private practice working with children, adults and families, providing supervision to individuals and groups and training to organisations.

Guest: Fran Waters, DCSW

Our guest this podcast is Fran Waters, DCSW, LMSW, LMFT.

WATERS color b.jpg

Fran S. Waters, DCSW, LMSW, LMFT, is an internationally recognized trainer and consultant in the field of childhood trauma, abuse, and dissociation. As an invited presenter, she has conducted extensive training programs nationally and internationally ranging from a day to 5 days in Europe, Africa, Australia, South America, and North America on a variety of related topics.

She is the author of Healing the Fractured Child: Diagnosing and Treating Youth with Dissociation, and past
president of the International Society for the Study of Dissociation (ISSTD). She is a Fellow of the ISSTD, and received ISSTD's Presidential Award and Cornelia Wilbert Award, the Media Award from American Professional Society on Abuse of Children for her 3 Part DVD on Trauma and Dissociation of Children, and the William Friedrich Memorial Child Sexual Abuse Research, Assessment and/or Treatment Award from Institute on Violence, Abuse and Trauma.  She maintains a private practice in Marquette, MI.

You can visit her website for more information HERE.



Guest: Richard Schwartz, PhD (Internal Family Systems)

Our guest this week was Richard Schwartz, PhD, who developed the Internal Family Systems (IFS) model of treatment for trauma and other therapeutic issues:

Schwartz_Richard_600x600-600x600.jpg

Richard Schwartz began his career as a systemic family therapist and an academic. Grounded in systems thinking, Dr. Schwartz developed Internal Family Systems (IFS) in response to clients’ descriptions of various parts within themselves. He focused on the relationships among these parts and noticed that there were systemic patterns to the way they were organized across clients. He also found that when the clients’ parts felt safe and were allowed to relax, the clients would experience spontaneously the qualities of confidence, openness, and compassion that Dr. Schwartz came to call the Self. He found that when in that state of Self, clients would know how to heal their parts.

A featured speaker for national professional organizations, Dr. Schwartz has published many books and over fifty articles about IFS. You can read more about him and about IFS on his website HERE.

COVID19: A Trauma Response
coronavirus.jpg

The impact of COVID19 has caused changes and chaos for most of us across the world, whether we have gotten sick or know someone who has, or whether we have made significant lifestyle changes to help “flatten the curve”.    We have learned about how viruses multiply exponentially, witnessed the shutting down of schools and businesses, and watched as hospitals filled and protective equipment ran out.  But we have also seen creativity in connection, enjoyed the slowing down of our busy lives, and refocused on being present with our own families.

In neuroscience, it’s the “mammal brain”, or higher brain, that turns you toward your caregivers when you are in danger.   This is the pull toward “home”, whether it is your own parents or chosen family.  This is why children - whether ours or those we teach or love - turn towards us for learning how to handle a crisis, how to regulate our emotions, and how to feel about all that is going on in the world around us.

It is the “reptile brain”, or lower brain, that tells us to run from danger.  That’s what helps us remember to wash our hands.  That’s what makes us strong enough to stay away from neighbors and friends and family that we miss during social distancing.  That’s what cringes inside us when we hear stories of people being exposed, getting sick, or so many people dying.

There are times in life when the brain gets both signals at once, causing a conflict that makes it feel impossible to respond.   For example, with child abuse, the brain wants to turn toward the caregiver for safety.  But the brain also wants to run away from the caregiver who is causing the danger.   And yet the brain knows the body is dependent on the caregiver to stay alive because they are only a child, despite the danger that is also present.  

That is trauma - not just when you get hurt physically, but when external situations leave no way to get out of what is causing danger, but also no protection from that danger.

To make things even more challenging, your brain itself doesn’t actually perceive context.   It just knows signals it receives from your body and the chemicals rushing through your body.   So sometimes even the experience of this dynamic, either relationally (with others) or only the perception of danger, is enough to tell your brain that you are in danger and initiate a trauma response.

When your brain gets the signal that you are in danger, one of the things it does is send a message to the vegus nerve, which goes from your brain to all your major organs (heart, lungs, etc.).   Because it branches off along the way, it is called the “polyvagal nerve”.   This is what prepares your body to respond to danger.

When your trauma response is activated, the polyvagal nerve presses down on your organs so that you are ready to respond to danger.  You can’t detect danger and then decide to respond and then tell your body to get ready for it.  For survival, your body has to already be ready to respond to danger as soon as it is detected.

When you are not in danger, it means you are feeling safe and you others around you also feel safe.  Your brain knows this through tone of voice, content and rhythm and pacing of conversation, and facial expressions.  Your body matches these as part of safe mode:  your affect is brighter, and your voice is modulated (goes up and down in pitch), and so you feel calm and good and happy.

But when you feel there is some danger, or your body senses it, then the nerve is activated against your organs, so as to prepare your body to respond to that danger.  Your body doesn't have to be in actual danger - it might just be perceived danger - even just another person's facial expressions or tone of voice can be perceived as danger.  Then your own facial expression goes flat, and your voice goes more monotone, and your heart and lungs are pumping in preparation for "flight".   This often is where panic attacks happen.

If you aren't able to feel safe again quickly, and you still feel in danger, then your body thinks now your life is being threatened (whether it is or not), and you drop down another stage into "fight".   Because you couldn't get away from the situation, now your body wants to fight.  This is when verbal aggression increases, or you feel then tightness in your arms and legs instead of just your chest.

When you can't win at fighting, even if it's just with someone who argues better or differently than you do - even if that's not oppressive or even abusive - then your body goes into shutdown mode, or “freeze”.  Your mind goes blank.  You basically dissociate.  You don't respond to anything.

Falling down that "ladder" - from safety to flight to fight to shutdown - always happens in that order, though some stages may happen more quickly than others for some people.    And to get back to safety, you have to go back up the ladder in the same order you came down - so back up to fight (being willing to confront a situation or something you were avoiding or something you need to try or do differently) and then up to flight (getting away from what isn't healthy, what isn't safe, what patterns are not positive or beneficial for you) until you get back up to safety.

Right now, with the COVID19 experience globally, we as individuals (and as communities) are experiencing a trauma response.  There is no way you can actively “fight” the actual virus itself, and there is no way to get away from the experience of the pandemic (“flight”).   It impacts us in every area of our lives, and has impacted all of the people around us.   No one is “safe”, and everyone around us is also responding to the same experience.   Our brain literally steps down into the “freeze” response.

It is important to remember that all of your feelings are valid as you adjust to all of this and feel the impact of it in many ways.  Everything you feel is okay, and all of your feelings are normal.  It makes sense why you are responding the way that you are.

You may feel more tired, slow, or less motivated while in the “freeze” response.  It may be difficult to focus, pay attention to others, or complete tasks.   You may be hypervigilant in other ways, like staring at patterns of tile in the bathroom or at light dancing on leaves outside.  You may struggle to focus on conversation, tolerate the noise of children, or stick to any kind of routine.  You may feel pulled down by gravity, struggle to smile, or forget to laugh.  Time may get slippery, the days blur together, and hours disappear.   You may feel less real, or like you are watching yourself, or like the world around you is unbelievable.  

The word for all of this is “dissociation”, which is a continuum of the “freeze” response.

You may also experience some grief responses for your loss of normalcy, the loss of your routine, and especially loss of contact with friends.  You may also miss the ease with which things were accessible while still taken for granted.  You may crave the earlier stability you experienced from your work or other routines.  You may feel at a loss without the validation that you are busy enough, doing enough, or productive enough.

But you are enough.

What you are experiencing is a trauma response:  flight, fight, or freeze.

With COVID19, that "fight" could look like anything from irritability to an increase in bickering with children or arguing with adults to actual aggression.   "Flight" could look like avoidance behaviors, such as scrolling on social media for hours at a time, eating too much of unhealthy foods instead of keeping things balanced,  too much screen time instead of using some of the time to organize or clean while you have the chance, isolating in your bed instead of interacting with others who live with you, or disengaging from family and friends instead of finding creative ways to connect.  

"Freeze", then, could look like staying under the covers instead of being able to get up for your day, feeling sleepy or lethargic, staring into space for long periods, or needing extra sleep, or being overwhelmed with tasks as you try to work from home, or if you are still having to "go" to work, or if you are having to   help children learn from home.

There are others as well, which may be more your style, besides just the common fight, flight, or freeze:

“Fawning” is when we try hard to be very good, so that we are not caught or blend in or fly under the radar.  This is a very common way for children with relational trauma to behave so as not to upset the parent.   It also happens frequently in domestic violence situations.   With COVID19, it may look like too much handwashing or overly isolating indoors, in cases where you are properly socially distanced and can relax some in your own home.

(The above “F’s” of fight, flight, and freeze, were identified and written about by Peter Walker. The additional F’s below were identified by and written about by trauma survivor and life coach “The Crisses”. Others have come up with more, as well. We apply these here as part of educating about and sharing our own trauma responses to COVID19 on the podcast.)

“Following” is what happens when you go along with things despite the danger.  In abuse situations, it looks like doing what the abuser says to do in hopes that joining with them will keep you safe.  In COVID19, it looks like people who minimize the danger and refuse to self-quarantine, in effort to avoid feelings of anxiety or admit their own fears.

“Fortifying” is when we make our “walls” higher and stronger to defend ourselves better than before.  In abuse survivors, this may look like disruption in relationships or increase in dissociative symptoms.  It can look like social disconnect instead of social distance.  With COVID19, it could be hoarding toilet paper or stockpiling medications with no evidence to actually treat the virus.

“Fabricating” is when the story is changed so it’s not scary.  This is a kind of denial more than it is an attempt to actually deceive, though deception is what happens by default.  In abuse situations, this could look like a child making up happy stories about their parents.   In domestic violence experiences, it is telling yourself someone loves you despite the pattern of them hurting you.   With COVID19, it shows up when recommendations from doctors and scientists are dismissed or downplayed.

None of these are "bad" or "wrong".   They are trauma responses.  Your brain is literally trying to catch up the   processing of what is happening to you.  Remember that your brain does not know context.   It only knows the   signals it receives and the chemicals flowing through, which right now is a lot of stress information with so many changes as we protect ourselves from a virus we can't actually  "see" (or fight or get away from right now).   Your brain may interpret that as "danger",  without understanding you are doing everything you can to be safe  and to continue functioning.

Feel all there is to feel.  Let it come up.  Notice it.  Acknowledge it.

But then let it go.

You have the power to choose your response and which thoughts to dwell on and which experiences to create for yourself.

All of your feelings are valid, but your feelings are not reality.  They only give you information about what is happening in reality.   Receive the information, but then empower yourself to choose your response.

“Facilitating” is a way of coping that empowers yourself for positive change and healing, even if in little ways.  This almost always happens in connections with others, through attunement experiences where your emotional needs are noticed, reflected and met by safe people around you.  Any step towards this counts, whether it is telling the truth about abuse (they are not your secrets to have to keep), or unsubscribing from the toxic issues of others, or not taking the bait in negative thoughts in yourself or negative interactions with others.

Be gentle with yourself.  Give yourself breaks.  Let your body rest.   You may literally be exhausted from the trauma response happening in your body, even if you are not sick at all.

Connect with others in the ways you can.  Be both safe and creative in how you do.   But do it.

Do deep, slow breathing periodically to help that polyvagal nerve come off your organs and remind your brain that you are safe.  Regular practice of progressive muscle relaxation would also help reinforce those signals to your brain, so that it knows you are safe and aware of the situation.  These very simple things that almost seem too silly make a huge difference for your brain.

Find ways to laugh and smile.  You have to do it intentionally until your brain knows you are safe.  But the more you smile and brighten your affect, the safer people around you will also feel.   Then they will start smiling, too, and feel better themselves, which also helps you feel better as your brain notices that.   Smiling makes a physiological difference, I promise.

It makes sense you feel like you have fallen down a ladder, because you have.

But you also still have the power to climb back up again.

We work online with clients internationally, as well as those living in Oklahoma, Kansas, and New Jersey. 
CLICK HERE to register.

ISSTD CONFERENCE POSTER SESSION 2020: The 2019 PPWC Survey Results

On today’s podcast, we share the PPWC Survey Results about Plural Experience, as an expression of plural culture and shared experiences. These results were accepted for a Poster Session at the 2020 ISSTD Conference in San Francisco. However, as you now know, the conference was cancelled at the last minute due to efforts of government officials’ attempts at controlling the Coronavirus through social distancing. Because we were not able to share our poster, we did take pictures of it and do share them below.

IMG_0417.jpg

As part of the 2019 Plural Positivity World Conference (PPWC), we helped with a survey with results to be shared in 2020. This Plural Positivity Experience survey was not associated with any research project, nor did the survey go through any review panel process. There was input from the Plural community itself, including deciding which contextual questions to include (such as the ACE’s questionnaire) as well as verbiage options to be as inclusive as possible for the Plural experience. Again, this was not a research project, but was an expression of the Plural experience, both individually and as a community.

Please note:

  • Participants were informed that the survey results would be shared during the 2020 PPWC Conference.

  • To continue the survey, participants had to agree that they understood this and that they were over 18.

  • Any participant who did not agree to have their results shared or who were under 18 were excluded from the survey results published below.

  • It was explicitly stated, and participants agreed to understanding, that the questions were only for information about their experiences and not at all diagnostic in nature.

  • Participants were also warned that due to the nature of trauma-specific questions, they could be triggered during the survey. Resources and referrals for support were offered, and system-wide self care was encouraged before, during, and after participating in the survey.

IMG_0420.jpg

SURVEY DESIGN

This survey was designed by plurals themselves, as a community, following online discussions in support groups, peer mentoring groups, and a variety of social platforms. The common threads of interest were narrowed down and presented in polls on the social platforms. From these results, the questions included in the survey were designed. While obviously vast and covering a multiplicity (pun intended) of areas that would be too many variables for a research project, this was again just the general areas of experience that plurals themselves wanted to know more about and were interested in learning in regards to shared experiences.

The survey was in English.

The survey took an average of 26 minutes to complete.

The first page of the survey was simply exclusionary material clarifying the purpose, concerns, and limitations of the survey. Any “no” responses exited the participant from the survey. Questions included:

  1. I am over the age of 18.

  2. I understand the screening tools used in this survey are for data gathering only, and not meant to be diagnostic in nature.

  3. I understand that due to the nature of the survey in regards to trauma and dissociation, some of the questions may be triggering.  I am safe and able to care for myself during and after this survey, and know where and how to seek support if I need help.

  4. I understand I can quit this survey at any time.

  5. I understand the data gathered from this survey is non-identifiable, and that the survey is done with SSL encryption.

  6. I understand that the data results will be combined, and that the overall results will be shared in the Plural Positivity World Conference for plurals, by plurals.  I understand that the data results will be shared with the conference via the System Speak podcast, which is a public podcast already on air.  I understand that the podcast may be linked to from other blogs, YouTube Channels, and support groups online.  I understand that, while this is not an official research project, the clinical community as a whole may have access to these results generally and the related non-identifiable data.

  7. I understand these things and consent to this survey.

The second page of the survey were demographics, including country, identified gender, body age, levels of education for self and each parent. It also included context questions regarding perception of trauma impact on education, frequented online resources, government assistance, housing stability, and patterns of sleeping, eating, and exercise.

The third page of the survey were the questions from the Dissociative Experiences Scale, again clarified that this was for appropriateness of the survey and not for diagnostic purposes.

The fourth page of the survey were the ACE (Adverse Childhood Experiences) questions.

The fifth page of the survey was about therapeutic experiences, including: number of therapists prior to diagnosis, number of therapists since diagnosis, reasons for changing therapists, current reported diagnosis, ritual abuse identification, how therapy is paid for, positive and negative experiences with therapists, what does and does not feel safe in therapy, misdiagnosis experiences, treatment goals, and integration perspectives.

The final page of the survey was cultural, about the personal experiences and identification of or with the integration process and views on functional multiplicity.

There were no research analyses done with the data, beyond the collective-per-question results shared below, or any correlation conclusions drawn from this survey due to this not being an actual research project and other obvious limitations to this survey.

That said, we do believe it to be informational about the common experiences of the Plural community as a whole, and that the survey could be informational upon reflection when considering future clinical studies.

IMG_0421.jpg

SURVEY PARTICIPATION

The PPWC organizers had an initial goal of 100 responses from different people diagnosed with DID or otherwise identifying as “multiple” or “plural”.

The link to the survey was shared in all known dissociative disorder and plural community support groups on Facebook, posted and shared on Twitter, and then also explained and shared on other communities including Discord, Reddit, and Tumblr.

The link was also left live on this website, and we did discuss it on the podcast.

The link was left live for six months so that as many could participate in the survey as possible.

Ultimately, the survey received 863 responses from different IP addresses (which were not tracked or recorded, but filtered only for non-repetition of the survey).

These responses came from 61 different countries, including:

  • North America: Canada, United States, Mexico, and Panama;

  • South America: Columbia, Peru, Brazil, Uruguay, Argentina, Chile;

  • Europe: Iceland, Ireland, UK, France, Germany, Belgium, Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Poland, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Slovenia, Austria, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Serbia, Romania, Greece;

  • Africa: Morocco, Ghana, Egypt, Uganda, Kenya, South Africa;

  • Asia: Turkey, Lebanon, Israel, Iran, Pakistan, India, Nepal, China, Thailand, Cambodia, Indonesia, Philippines, Russia, South Korea, Japan; and

  • Australia and New Zealand.

The survey had a 92% completion rate. An additional 6% completed more than 75% of the survey, but needed to stop due to length of the survey. 1% had to stop the survey because of triggers. The final 1% did not complete the survey and did not explain why.

RESULTS

PAGE ONE: Clarifying Material and Consent to the Survey

Only participants who answered “Yes” to the first seven questions (see above) were included in the results below.

PAGE TWO: Demographics

Participant countries were listed above.

In regards to identified gender:

  • 54% identified as female;

  • 9% identified as male;

  • 9% identified as non-binary;

  • 8% identified as trans male;

  • 4% identified as gender queer;

  • 3% identified as trans female;

  • 2% identified as gender fluid;

  • 2% identified as non-conforming;

  • 1% identified as gender variant; and

  • 1% identified as questioning.

4% listed “other” as their identified gender, and reported that they did not want to answer.

“Female” and “Trans female” as well as “Male” and “Trans Male” were included separately not to divide the genders (“female” and “trans female” being the same gender, and “male” and “trans male” being the same gender), but simply to clarify experiences in everyone’s request for their journey to be included and reflected.

The remaining percent were decimals in the above percents, as will also be the case with the remaining results below.

In regards to the actual body age, people reported that":

  • 43% were ages 25-34;

  • 20% were 18-24;

  • 16% were 35-44;

  • 13% were 45-54;

  • 2% were 55-64; and

  • 1% was over 65.

We would suggest that the online platforms provided access to younger populations not usually included in research studies. We would also suggest that the online platforms were more accessible to those who are in rural areas and in other geographic locations not usually available to participate in research studies.

In regards to the participants’ fathers’ education:

  • 26% had high school education only;

  • 21% had graduate level education;

  • 20% had bachelor’s level education;

  • 17% had some college but no degree;

  • 7% had an associate’s degree; and

  • 6% did not complete high school.

In regards to the participants’ mothers’ education:

  • 25% had a high school degree only;

  • 18% had some college but no degree;

  • 18% had a bachelor’s degree;

  • 14% had a graduate level education;

  • 11% had an associate’s degree; and

  • 11% did not complete high school.

For participants themselves:

  • 35% have some college education but no degree;

  • 22% have a bachelor degree;

  • 16% have a high school degree only;

  • 11% have a graduate degree;

  • 9% have an associate’s degree; and

  • 4% have not finished high school.

For context, remember that 20% of the participants were in the age group of 18-24; however, that said, more participants have finished high school than their parents. More have some college, even if they have not finished a degree. More have associate’s degrees than their fathers. More have bachelor’s degrees.

Of these, in regards to how their trauma histories impacted their educational efforts, participants reported that:

  • 34% felt their trauma impacted their education “a great deal”;

  • 25% felt their trauma impacted their education “a lot, but I struggled through”;

  • 13% felt their trauma impacted their education “a lot”;

  • 7% felt they were able to complete the education they wanted;

  • 6% felt their trauma “moderately” impacted their education;

  • 5% felt their education was impacted by trauma “some, but I dealt with it okay”;

  • 4% felt their trauma impacted their education “a little”; and

  • 1% felt their trauma did not impact their education.

As for online platforms survivors frequently use for support:

  • 78% use Facebook;

  • 77% use YouTube;

  • 70% use Facebook support groups;

  • 36% use professional and/or clinical research sites;

  • 32% use Twitter;

  • 28% use Podcasts;

  • 24% use Reddit;

  • 22% use Tumblr; and

  • 20% use organizational sites.

As for level of functioning and assistance needed:

  • 59% of participants reported they are not on any social security, housing assistance, or food stamps;

  • 27% of participants reported they are on social benefits;

  • 8% of participants reported they use social benefits, as do others in their household; and

  • 3% of participants reported they do not, but someone else in their household does.

As for housing stability, participants reported that in the last five years:

  • 24% have not moved;

  • 20% have moved once;

  • 15% have moved three times;

  • 13% have moved twice;

  • 7% have moved five times;

  • 7% have moved more than ten times;

  • 4% have moved six times;

  • 2% have moved seven times;

  • 2% have moved four times;

  • 1% have moved eight times; and

  • 1% have moved nine times.

In regards to physical care, the survey included questions about sleep, eating, and exercise.

In regards to sleep, participants reported that:

  • 54% do not exercise at all, due either to preference or medical condition;

  • 21% exercise twice a week;

  • 13% exercise once a week; and

  • 10% exercise five times a week.

No other responses were reported on that question.

In regards to eating, participants reported that:

  • 36% eat twice a day;

  • 24% eat three times a day;

  • 15% eat smaller amounts four times a day;

  • 11% eat just once a day; and

  • 6% reported that eating is difficult, and so they leave food out and “whoever inside” just “grazes” throughout the day if and when they are able to eat something.

In addition,

  • 34% reported they struggle to eat five to six days a week;

  • 20% struggle to eat one to two days a week;

  • 20% do not struggle at all to eat;

  • 18% struggle to eat three to four days a week; and

  • 6% do not miss meals no matter what, nor do they find it difficult to eat.

In regards to sleeping, participants reported that:

  • 28% sleep eight hours or more a night because they have help with medication;

  • 22% sleep six to eight hours a night without the use of medication;

  • 24% sleep four to five hours a night without the use of medication;

  • 21% sleep three to four hours a night without the use of medication; and

  • 4% sleep one to three hours a night without medication.

In addition,

  • 24% rarely have nightmares;

  • 22% have nightmares one to two nights a week;

  • 18% used to have nightmares, but not so much since starting therapy;

  • 15% feel like they still have nightmares every night;

  • 11% have nightmares three to four nights a week; and

  • 7% have nightmares five to six nights a week.

IMG_0422.jpg

PAGE THREE: Dissociative Experiences Scale (DES) -II

The DES was included for context of what issues participants struggle with and which populations were completing the survey. It was not used for any diagnostic purposes, nor were the results saved in anyway by specific participants. Rather, the algorithm of responses scored this page per participant but only reported in the results of the page in the percentage of participants who scored in each range. So, we were not informed of which DES score goes with which participant. We only know what percentage of each possible DES score. That was intentional, as an additional buffer for privacy since this is not a clinical research study or diagnosis in any way. Participants were not informed of their individual score, nor was this reported to us in anyway. Individual DES-II scores were not reported or disclosed to anyone in any way.

Of the participants in this survey, 89% scored above 30 on the DES-II. 6% scored between 27-30. 4% scored between 24-26. 1% of participants scored 23 or below.

The high scores were expected, due to the population receiving notice of and participating in this survey were primarily those already in treatment for or aware of their own issues of trauma and dissociation.

Please note that higher scores (30 and above) only indicate high levels of dissociation, and are not indicative of specific diagnosis in and of themselves.

Again, the inclusion of the DES-II was only as a measurement of experience in the context of this survey; no clinical interview, structured or otherwise, was part of this survey, and no diagnoses were given to any participant.

For more information about the DES-II, please visit the ISSTD website. To take an online version of the DES-II, CLICK HERE.

PAGE FOUR: Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACE)

We included the ACE questions by request of the community due to increasing discussion within the community of the physiological impact of trauma long-term.

The ACE study questions were broken down into the questions listed below, to which participants could answer “yes” or “no”. Again, a specific participant’s answers were not saved per participant, but rather as a poll for how many participants answered yes to each question. This was both in protection of people’s privacy and because the survey was not being given in a clinical setting. 4% of participants opted out of this page due to the nature of the triggering questions regarding their own trauma. Another 1% declined to participate for other unspecified reasons. The positive results endorsed by those participants who completed this set of questions are given as follows:

  1.   Did a parent or other adult in the household often or very often… Swear at you, insult you, put you down, or humiliate you?

    80% YES

  2.   Did a parent or other adult in the household often or very often… Act in a way that made you afraid that you might be physically hurt?

    78% YES

  3. Did an adult or person at least 5 years older than you ever… Touch or fondle you or have you touch their body in a sexual way?

    66% YES

  4. Did an adult or person at least 5 years older than you ever… Attempt or actually have oral, anal, or vaginal intercourse with you?

    52% YES

  5. Did you often or very often feel that… No one in your family loved you or thought you were important or special?

    71% YES

  6. Did you often or very often feel that… Your family didn’t look out for each other, feel close to each other, or support each other?

    70% YES

  7. Did you often or very often feel that… You didn’t have enough to eat, had to wear dirty clothes, and had no one to protect you?

    44% YES

  8. Did you often or very often feel that… Your parents were too drunk or high to take care of you or take you to the doctor if you needed it?  Or didn't for some other reasons?

    36% YES

  9. Did a parent or other adult in the household often or very often… Push, grab, slap, or throw something at you?

    53% YES

  10. Did a parent or other adult in the household often or very often… Ever hit you so hard that you had marks or were injured?

    45% YES

  11. Was your mother or stepmother: Often or very often pushed, grabbed, slapped, or had something thrown at her?

    23% YES

  12. Was your mother or stepmother: Sometimes, often, or very often kicked, bitten, hit with a fist, or hit with something hard?

    15% YES

  13. Was your mother or stepmother: Sometimes, often, or very often threatened with a gun or knife or other weapon?

    4% YES

  14. Were your parents separated or divorced?

    49% YES

  15. Did you live with anyone who was a problem drinker or alcoholic or who used street drugs?

    47% YES

  16. Was a household member depressed or mentally ill, or did a household member attempt suicide?

    72% YES

  17. Did a household member go to prison?

    15% YES

It is interesting to note that 7% of participants wished the ACE questions included similar specific questions for their father or stepfather the way it does about the mother or stepmother, as this group of people reported their mothers as the or one of the primary abusers even against their father or stepfather.

IMG_0424.jpg

PAGE FIVE: Therapeutic Experiences

This section of the survey addressed issues regarding therapeutic experiences that the Plural Community had brought up in discussion about what to include in the survey.

In asking about who was in therapy, the participants responded as follows:

  • 58% were currently in therapy at the time;

  • 10% were, but had to quit because their therapist didn’t “believe” in dissociation;

  • 10% wanted to be, but have been unable to find a therapist who works with dissociation;

  • 8% were, but had to stop when their funding was cut or insurance stopped paying for it;

  • 4% were, but their therapist moved;

  • 4% were not currently, but actively looking for a therapist;

  • 3% were, but had to stop because of schedule conflicts; and

  • 1% were not because they chose not to be in therapy.

Not one person responded that they were in therapy and it was entirely covered by insurance.

When asked about how many therapists they had thus far, participants responded that:

  • 21% had been referred more than six times;

  • 18% had been referred more than seven times;

  • 18% had been referred more than twice;

  • 16% had been referred more than three times;

  • 11% had more than eight therapists already;

  • 10% had more than 10 therapists already; and

  • only 4% have only been with one therapist.

The remainder of participants have not yet found a therapist.

When asked why they had seen so many therapists, participants responded as follows (due to multiple experiences with different therapists, participants could report more than one reason, so these percentages do not add up to 100):

  • 48% couldn’t make a positive connection with good rapport;

  • 39% could tell their therapist didn’t know what to do with them;

  • 31% had to move because of related instability;

  • 26% felt their therapist didn’t listen to them;

  • 25% had a therapist tell them they didn’t know how to treat them;

  • 22% felt their therapist did not believe them;

  • 17% had a therapist who moved or left an insurance panel;

  • 9% were abused by a therapist;

  • 8% had a therapist who retired;

  • 8% had schedule conflicts;

  • 7% didn’t believe their therapist when they did get diagnosed, or got scared, and so quit therapy; and

  • 6% left a therapist who was trying to force integration.

“Other” comments included experiences of aging out of a particular school or program, therapist not being able to handle gender identity or sexual orientation issues, being too anxious to keep appointments, finances, and being forced to report abusers.

IMG_0425.jpg

When asked how many therapists it took before getting an accurate diagnosis, the participants responded that:

  • 42% had seen two therapists;

  • 39% still had gotten a proper diagnosis with just one therapist;

  • 16% had to see four therapists;

  • 5% saw six therapists;

  • 3% saw more than eight therapists; and

  • 1% saw more than fifteen therapists prior to getting an accurate diagnosis.

When asked to share their diagnosis if they felt safe doing so, the participant percentages were:

  • 53% DID

  • 15% were not sure;

  • 12% waiting on results of testing or for diagnostic appointments;

  • 8% Complex PTSD

  • 5% PTSD

  • 4% DDNOS

  • 3% OSDD

When asked who did the diagnosing, participants replied that:

  • 54% were diagnosed by a therapist;

  • 24% were diagnosed by a psychiatrist;

  • 23% were diagnosed by case manager or social worker;

  • 5% were diagnosed by a doctor; and

  • 4% were “peer-diagnosed” by a friend who referred them to a clinical professional.

When asked how they identified any experience of S/RA, participants shared that:

  • 56% did not know what the terms were and so did not think it applied to them;

  • 23% knew what the terms were, but also knew it did not apply to them;

  • 7% preferred the term RA/MC (Ritual Abuse/Mind Control);

  • 5% preferred the term (S)RA (Satanic/Ritual Abuse);

  • 4% preferred just the general term of trafficking;

  • 3% preferred the term RA (Ritual Abuse); and

  • 1% preferred the term SRA/MC (Satanic Ritual Abuse / Mind Control).

It is interesting to note that not any single participant chose the more general term of “organizational abuse”, and no single participant endorsed “MC - mind control only”.

When asked about other non-trauma diagnoses:

  • 77% also have Anxiety;

  • 67% also have Depression;

  • 67% have both a Dissociative Disorder and PTSD;

  • 25% have a Panic Disorder;

  • 19% also have OCD;

  • 13% have also been diagnosed with Borderline Personality Disorder;

  • 11% have also been diagnosed with a Bipolar disorder;

  • 6% have another mood disorder diagnosis; and

  • 3% have another personality disorder diagnosis.

When asked about their best therapeutic experiences, participants shared (they could endorse more than one):

  • 80% said the best therapy was when the therapist was good at listening to them;

  • 57% said it was good therapy when they felt safe;

  • 56% said they knew it was good therapy when they got good advice;

  • 52% said it is good therapy when they feel connected;

  • 49% said the best therapeutic experience is when the therapist responds to others inside (alters/parts);

  • 48% said good therapy needs a safe-feeling setting;

  • 45% said it is good therapy when they receive comfort;

  • 40% said it is good therapy when they gain coping skills;

  • 38% said it’s best when they are educated about their mental health issues;

  • 38% said the best therapeutic experience is having access to contact outside sessions WHEN policies make those boundaries clear up front;

  • 38% said the best experience happens when the scheduling is consistent;

  • 27% said the best experience is when they are held accountable for their progress;

  • 27% said the best experience is being able to relax and practice relaxation strategies;

  • 18% said it is good therapy when they get safe hugs (with permission);

  • 13% said it is only a good therapy experience when the office staff also feel safe, both on the phone and for check-in/check-out; and

  • 12% said it is good therapy when the therapist plays with Littles or intentionally includes them when appropriate.

IMG_0426.jpg

When asked about the most helpful techniques their therapists use, participants responded:

  • 87% Listening

  • 72% Reassurance

  • 64% Playing Together

  • 62% Art Therapy

  • 26% Guided Imagery

  • 26% Psychoeducation

  • 24% EMDR

  • 21% Music

  • 19% DBT

  • 18% Meditation

  • 16% CBT

  • 13% Sensory Therapy

  • 11% Sandtray Therapy

  • 10% Horse or Pet Therapy

  • 8% Progressive Muscle Relaxation

  • 5% Yoga

  • 3% Hypnotherapy

Please note that the above list is not an efficacy rating of which techniques are the most effective or produce the best results. These were simply the comfortable techniques experienced by the participant population of this survey. It does not mean any one of those is better or more helpful than another, and may reflect more frequency of use or access than quality of treatment.

When asked what made them feel NOT safe in therapy, the participants endorsed the following:

  • 65% Not knowing how to help me;

  • 56% Not listening to me;

  • 39% Therapist saying my stories were too hard / too much / too intense for them;

  • 37% Therapists refusing to talk to others inside (alters/parts);

  • 32% Discounting my stories;

  • 30% Therapist talking too much about their own stuff during sessions;

  • 25% Not feeling safe with office staff or in office setting;

  • 21% Not available outside of session;

  • 21% Not knowing about vacations or time off ahead of time for scheduling;

  • 20% Concerns about confidentiality;

  • 19% Boundary violations;

  • 18% Therapist being afraid of my insiders (parts/alters);

  • 16% Sudden movements;

  • 15% Rejection of Littles;

  • 13% Touch without permission, even if it was otherwise safe/appropriate;

  • 13% Lack of eye contact;

  • 12% Texting or taking calls from other people during sessions;

  • 8% Not closing the office door during sessions;

  • 3% Deliberate triggering to prove a point, access a particular alter, or test progress;

  • 2% Inappropriate/unwanted religious discussion; and

  • 2% Falling asleep during sessions.

Of participants asked, 18% had been abused by a therapist.

Of these, only 4% reported it.

Of those in therapy, 82% agree with their therapist on their treatment goals. Some of these goals include:

  • 75% Decrease in Anxiety / Panic;

  • 72% Improved Functioning;

  • 67% Memory Work / Specific Trauma Processing;

  • 67% Improved Internal Communication;

  • 66% Compassion for My Self/ves;

  • 62% Improved Mood;

  • 58% Improved Cooperation;

  • 41% Decrease Lost Time;

  • 40% Maintain Functioning;

  • 34% Remembering;

  • 22% Stabilization and Reduce Self-Harm Behaviors;

  • 15% Reduce Interpersonal Drama with Outside Relationships; and

  • 14% Accepting the Diagnosis.

When asked their therapist’s goal for therapy, participants reported:

  • 50% Functional Multiplicity

  • 5% Integration

Another 20% did not know what their therapist goal was or what they thought about integration or functional multiplicity.

12% did not think their therapist has ever heard of functional multiplicity.

When asked about their own goal for therapy, participants reported:

  • 78% Functional Multiplicity

  • 3% Integration

  • 11% had not yet heard the term “functional multiplicity”

When asked directly if participants ultimately had some goal or vision for final or complete integration, 78% said no.

92% said they were interested in some level of functional multiplicity.

PAGE SIX: Plural Perspectives

The final questions regarding plural perspectives became more specific in regards to identifying with or despite trauma, levels of dissociation, and functional multiplicity or ultimate integration. These questions arose from the efforts at uniting the Plural community as a resource for itself, for Plurals by Plurals, while also respecting individual experiences and understanding the perspectives of the clinical community. The options for responses to these questions came from the Plural community themselves, in exploring options of self-expression as a community culture and not just a clinical diagnosis:

The questions will be listed, with the participant percentage responses following.

In regards to my trauma and dissociation, I identify as:

    • 35% DID

    • 27% Plural

    • 22% Multiple

    • 5% Dissociative

    • 3% Traumatized

    • 2% It’s just baggage

In regards to my trauma and dissociation, I am:

    • 30% In the closet publicly, but have found support groups online;

    • 19% I have told friends, but not my family;

    • 12% Everyone knows, and I consider myself an advocate in some way;

    • 10% I have told my friends and family, but carefully with good boundaries;

    • 4% Everyone knows, but I am not safe enough to advocate culturally;

    • 3% Still in the closet, but at least I “get it” and am trying to deal; and

    • 2% So far in the closet that I still am not sure what’s going on yet.

In regards to my trauma and dissociation, coming out to myself:

  • 64% was a huge relief because everything finally made sense;

  • 42% brutally hard, but at least I knew what was going on;

  • 32% was positive because I found others like me;

  • 18% was so hard / terrifying / confusing that I still can’t even think about it yet;

  • 14% was a good thing because I finally got help; and

  • 7% was not a big deal.

In regards to my trauma and dissociation, coming out to others was:

  • 37% mostly with others online who know what it’s like to be me;

  • 29% not as big a deal as I thought it would be;

  • 27% disappointing because I lost family or friend contacts because of it;

  • 25% okay, and my friends were totally supportive;

  • 24% easier with my friends than my family;

  • 16% terrible because of the repercussions that followed;

  • 14% dangerous, and caused me safety problems; and

  • 13% terrifying, and totally backfired.

IMG_0423.jpg

I believe my dissociation is:

  • 38%  Traumagenic-Adaptive (I am this way because of trauma, and still use dissociation adaptively to deal with life but not necessarily intentionally and not as part of my intentional cultural expression.)

  • 34%  Traumagenic (I am this way because of trauma.)

  • 13%  Traumagenic-Cultural (I am this way because of trauma, feel mostly in control of my symptoms, and have intentionally adapted to it as a cultural lifestyle.)

  • 2%  Endogenic (I was this way before I was born, but not because of trauma.)

  • 1%   Exogenic (I was this way since I was born or grew up this way, but not because of trauma - that I know of yet.)

There were NO people who marked the following:

  • 0%  Iatrogenic (I am this way because my therapist made me this way.)

  • 0%  Iatrogenic-SocioCognitive (I am this way because I internalized and/or copied symptoms seen in friends or online, intentionally or unintentionally.)

  • 0%  Iatrogenic-Cultural (I am this way because I internalized symptoms of others intentionally or unintentionally, but did intentionally learn/apply it as a lifestyle.)

Other responses included:

  • Quoigenic - mixed origin

  • Endogenic, but heavily and negatively impacted by trauma.

  • Traumagenic-Neonatal. We developed this way before we were born because our maternal unit was being abused/traumatized while we were in the womb. We were "born ready" for plurality & problems/trauma.

  • Traumagenic-SocioCognitive             

When I was young, I tended to identify with:

  • 65% Books

  • 31% Teachers

  • 31% Movies

  • 24% Video Games

  • 23% Science Fiction Anything

  • 21% Comics

  • 20% Role Playing Games

  • 17% Caregivers

  • 17% Role Models

This final question was included because “fictives” are being commonly dismissed from participating in treatment, and we wanted to explain how technology has impacted the use of introjects in plural systems. Here is a quote from the History of DID talk we gave last year at the 2019 PPWC Conference:

This is not 1980.

It’s been more than forty years since 1980.

More than half of your survivors were barely even born in 1980.

DID is not going to look the same, sound the same, or present the same now as it did in 1980 because those clients grew up in the 1940’s and 1950’s and 1960’s.   The cause may be the same, and the process may be the same, but the presentation comes in a whole new generation - four decades later.   Introjects look different, persecutors look different, and inner worlds look different.   That doesn’t make any of it less valid, and it is cruel and re-traumatizing for anyone to dismiss survivors because the culture we grew up in and had access to during childhood and adolescence was different than it was almost a hundred years ago.

Respectfully Submitted, thank you.

IMG_0427.jpg
IMG_0428.jpg
Taking Pictures

It was learning about the epigenetic impact of intergenerational trauma at a recent clinical training that got our attention, and our podcast interview with Veronique Mead who helped that piece make sense. Susan Pease Banitt also talked about this generational trauma and generational healing on the podcast, when we shared about taking our daughter back to Africa to meet her tribe.

Then, on the AEDP episode, we shared the example of this from the husband’s history. His great-great grandfather was a goat herder in Idaho. One night, they thought they heard a thief, so he and his son (great-grandfather) went out to stop the thief. They left the house, each of them going opposite ways around the house. That’s how the son (great-grandfather) accidentally shot and killed his father (great-great grandfather). The husband shares that this sense of doing your best, and trying to do the right thing, and making an effort to help still to him is experienced neurologically as failure to him. This theme underlies his own depression, so that as he receives EMDR treatment it isn’t just for depression but also for healing this layer that his “good” results in no-good, or even worse-than-failure. It’s fascinating.

This all began an entire “coming out” process for us, taking an entire year from one DID Awareness Day to the next. The first thing we did was write a letter on the ISSTD list serv introducing ourselves by our legal name as the producers of the System Speak podcast. Their warm welcome and positive reception gave us courage, to begin connecting with other professionals more openly, which was completely new to us and something we had never done before even locally. Through these experiences and beginning to make colleagues who turned into friends, a new kind of healing began as we worked through a layer of shame about our own disorder. This led us to also making new friends, both online and in person, through the podcast and “in real life” and at conferences, so that we met other people who were also survivors - even other therapists who were also survivors.

The next thing we noticed was Human Trafficking Awareness Day on January 11, 2020. We paid attention. We learned. The therapist told us it still counts as trafficking if it is your own family doing it to you. It was a difficult realization, and a lot to process, especially in a season of having to change therapists because the family had moved and we needed to join them. Triggers seemed especially raw, especially photographs, which had always been hard for us.

But as the podcast grew to 64 countries, we recognized the platform as a way to educate and support others like us who felt so alone in all they had endured, so we determined to try.

And we started learning.

Then we had Ellen Lacter, PhD, on the podcast, and she said that child pornography should be renamed as “production of child rape and torture materials” because of the severity of the abuse involved with producing child pornography.

That got our attention.

For DID Awareness Day 2020, we consented (as a system) to the article about us being released on ISSTD News. That was a big deal. It was terrifying.

But it was good and right, and it was time. They let us help write it, and they let us choose the pictures.

And for the first time, we released our photo.

This felt empowering, too, as people were trying to DOX us, which means they were writing about us online and releasing our legal name and family details and address against our wishes, endangering both ourselves and revealing our contact information to previous handlers and abusers. It was really traumatic and violating, and doing this on our own terms and “coming out” in our own process was a way to reclaim some of our own choices and safety.

But then, about the same time, we found out the podcast was winning an award from ISSTD, and that as part of accepting the award at the conference in San Francisco, we would be having our picture taken receiving the award.

82506368_114936176713152_2679077844784513024_n.jpg

That was even more terrifying.

It became a huge debate internally, and we discussed in therapy what our choices were: not to go at all, to go but not attend the awards dinner, to attend the awards dinner but not go on stage, to go on stage but not have our picture taken, or just to do it.

And, in a way, there was a pull to just do it. We did not get to go to any of our graduations for any of our degrees. Our high school graduation was a hot mess of family drama and well-meaning people trying to keep us safe but causing other problems. It was a nightmare. This would, in effect, be an opportunity to bring that full circle, even though it was just an award.

Plus, we had just worked hard. Really hard. For two years. A lot has happened on the podcast, and it is a lot of work to keep going. And it was exactly what we had advocated for: the recognition and receiving of lived experience as valid contributors in all kinds of ways. And we had already made so many friends within the ISSTD, so that felt safe. There was maybe a chance we could do it, and it would at least be a safe place to try.

We accepted the award, and filled out the required paperwork, and focused in therapy on getting our picture taken.

There was no pressure, except from us. The ISSTD was very respectful. We had time to figure things out.

And so we did.

We did it with some EMDR to focus on being safe. We did it by talking about safe people taking safe pictures. We did it by rehearsing what would happen: eating the dinner at the table, listening to them say something about the podcast, going up on the stage, accepting the award (no speech required), and having our picture taken “in a flash”. Easy- peasy.

So we practiced with some exposure therapy, trying it out a little at a time.

We made a few videos of our own children, with us in them, and shared one of them.

We took a selfie or two, and sent them to our friend. And to the husband. And then to the Facebook page.

When we found out our daughter was going to have high-risk airway reconstruction surgery again, and a (safe) friend paid a photographer to let us get family pictures taken before surgery, we agreed. This gave us opportunity to meet the photographer, let different ones inside see the camera and the equipment, and allow all of us (inside) to experience “normal” picture taking in a safe setting surrounded by those who love us most.

And we learned a lot, a lot that we want to share.

This information may be very triggering, as we will talk about trafficking and child pornography; however, we are talking about it in terms of explaining it and giving statistics we know from our work.

We will not be “trauma dumping” or making any specific or in-depth disclosures.

But it’s part of our progress, having a voice, and educating, and advocating, in good and healthy ways, even while we work on the rest in our own therapy. It’s also a way, very cognitively, that we can begin to process hard things by putting it into words that feel safer in a more generic sense as we start to do more phase two work in our own therapy. It’s still hard, but kind of more exposure therapy, in a way, of just saying it out loud in words.

We learned that there are between 21-30 million people enslaved in the world, more than at any time in human history. Every day, modern slavery can be recognized: children become soldiers, young women are forced into prostitution and migrant workers exploited in the workforce.

We learned that Human Trafficking Awareness Day started in 2007, when the U.S. Senate designated January 11th as National Human Trafficking Awareness Day in the hopes of raising awareness to combat human trafficking. It began as a U.S. initiative, and the United Nations has started to highlight this topic and work towards global awareness with days such as International Day for the Abolition of Slavery. We are working with some of the humanitarian aid teams working on this actively around the world.

The commercial sexual exploitation of children (CSEC) is a commercial transaction that involves the sexual exploitation of a child, such as the prostitution of children, child pornography, and the (often related) sale and trafficking of children. CSEC may involve coercion and violence against children, economic exploitation, forced labor, contemporary slavery.

A declaration of the World Congress against Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children, held in Stockholm in 1996, defined CSEC as: sexual abuse by the adult and remuneration in cash or kind to the child or a third person or persons. The child is treated as a sexual object and as a commercial object.

CSEC includes child sex tourism and other forms of transactional sex where a child engages in sexual activities to have key needs fulfilled, such as food, shelter or access to education. It includes forms of transactional sex where the sexual abuse of children is not stopped or reported by household members, due to benefits derived by the household from the perpetrator. CSEC also potentially includes arranged marriages involving children under the age of consent, where the child has not freely consented to marriage and where the child is sexually abused. These are things we are working with internationally in our professional work with humanitarian aid teams and UNICEF and UNHCR.

The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) states that roughly one out of every five girls and one out of every ten boys will be sexually exploited or abused before they become of age.

UNICEF says that child sexual exploitation is "one of the gravest infringements of rights that a child can endure".

Child pornography is prevalent on the international, national, regional, and local levels. Child pornography is a multibillion-dollar enterprise that includes photographs, books, audiotapes, videos and more. These images depict children performing sexual acts with other children, adults, and other objects. The children are subjected to exploitation, rape, pedophilia, and in extreme cases, murder. Pornography is often used as a gateway into the sex trade industry. Many pimps force children into pornography as a way of conditioning them to believe that what they are doing is acceptable. The pimps may then use the pornography to blackmail the child and extort money from clients. There are times this is used in conditioning for, part of grooming for, or alongside with organized or ritual abuse perpetration.

The “Scope and Definition of Child Sexual Abuse Fact Sheet” on StopItNow.org states:

  • Sex abuse does include both touching and non-touching behaviors.

  • All sexual touching between an adult and a child is sexual abuse.

  • Sexual touching between children can also be sexual abuse when there is a significant age difference (often defined as 3 or more years) between the children or if the children are very different developmentally or size-wise.

  • Sexual abuse does not have to involve penetration, force, pain, or even touching.

  • If an adult engages in any sexual behavior (looking, showing, or touching) with a child to meet the adult’s interest or sexual needs, it is sexual abuse. This includes the manufacture, distribution and viewing of child pornography.

The U.S. Department of Justice defines child pornography:

  • as any visual depiction of sexually explicit conduct involving a minor (persons less than 18 years old).

  • Images of child pornography are also referred to as child sexual abuse images.

  • Notably, the legal definition of sexually explicit conduct does not require that an image depict a child engaging in sexual activity. A picture of a naked child may constitute illegal child pornography if it is sufficiently sexually suggestive.

  • Additionally, the age of consent for sexual activity in a given state is irrelevant; any depiction of a minor less than 18 years of age engaging in sexually explicit conduct is illegal.

  • Federal law prohibits the production, distribution, importation, reception, or possession of any image of child pornography. A violation of federal child pornography laws is a serious crime, and convicted offenders face fines severe and statutory penalties.

The StopItNow.org also gives the following statistics:

  • One in 10 children will experience contact sexual abuse in the U.S. before age 18[iii]

  • More than 50% of sex abuse survivors were sexually abused before the age of 12.[iv]

  • One in 25 children (10-17) will receive an online sexual solicitation[v]

  • Of substantiated reports of child maltreatment in the US, 9% were unique survivors of sexual abuse[vi]

  • The average age for a minor to enter the sex trade is 12 – 14.[vii]

  • Globally, prevalence rates show that a range of 7-36% of women and 3-29% of men experience sexual abuse in childhood.[viii]

  • More than one-third (35.2%) of the women who reported a completed rape before the age of 18 also experienced a completed rape as an adult. Thus, the percentage of women who were raped as children or adolescents and also raped as adults was more than two times higher than the percentage among women without an early rape history. [ix]

  • 42.2% girls experiencing their first completed rape did so before the age of 18 (29.9% between 11-17 years old and 12.3% at or before age 10) [x]

  • Over one-quarter of male victims of completed rape experienced their first rape at or before the age of 10. [viii]

  • Children with disabilities are 2.9 times more likely than children without disabilities to be sexually abused.[xi]

  • Children with intellectual and mental health disabilities appear to be the most at risk, with 4.6 times the risk of sexual abuse as their peers without disabilities.[xii]

  • At least 31% of girls and 7% of boys involved in the juvenile justice system have been sexually abused.[xiii]

  • In as many as 93 percent of child sexual cases, the child knows the person that commits the abuse. [xiv]

  • Males made up almost 88% of perpetrators [xv]

  • 60% of children who are sexually abused do not disclose[xvi] [xvii] [xviii]

  • Up to  50% of child sexual abuse cases are perpetrated by someone younger than 18 years old[xix]

  • 12 – 24% of sex offenders are known re-offenders [xx]

  • Most are acquaintances but as many as 47% are family or extended family.[xxi]

  • Juveniles make up 20% of those arrested for sex offenses [xxii]

  • The 5-year sexual recidivism rate for high-risk sex offenders is 22% from the time of release, and decreases for this risk level to 4.2% for those who have remained offense-free in the community for 10 years. The recidivism rates of the low-risk offenders are consistently low (1%-5%) for all time periods. [xxiii]

Those of us (in America) who are identified victims of child pornography are notified by the FBI via the Child Pornography Victim Assistance program (CPVA).  If you actively need help now, several related resources are available in the United States:

Office for Victims of Crime (OVC) is a federal office that provides funding to support victim assistance and compensation programs. OVC’s website provides victims with information, resources, and a directory of crime victim services.  You can call them at 1-800-851-3420 or visit www.ovc.gov.

The Child Help USA hotline is a 24-hour hotline dedicated to the prevention of child abuse. It offers crisis intervention, information, literature, and referrals to local emergency, social service, and support resources.  You can call 1-800-4-A-CHILD (1-800-422-4453) or visit www.childhelp.org/hotline.

The National Center for Victims of Crime (NCVC) works with local, state, and federal partners to provide support to crime victims, and also advocates for laws and public policies to secure rights, resources, and protections. The National Crime Victim Bar Association, a program of NCVC, also provides information on civil lawsuits against a perpetrator or other responsible party, as well as referrals for attorneys specializing in victim-related litigation.  You can call 1-800-394-2255 or visit victimsofcrime.org.

These are hard things to live through, and hard things to remember, and hard things to work through. There is no easy way around it, and the layers of it are brutal. The years feel like one rabbit hole after another, with pieces overlapping but each experience distinct and the nights so very long. None of this is easy to talk about, or to acknowledge, or to share. It’s not comfortable to deal with in therapy, and it’s exhausting to avoid in everyday life.

But doing that hard work is the only way to get our power back, and remembering that “it’s not my secret” helps us tell about it.

And the telling matters because none of us are alone, and all of us are worth the healing.

And healing means connecting with those who have been so alone with so much hurt for such a very long time, whether inside or others with stories like ours.

So we did work hard, and we did get ready, even though there is a lot more work to do.

And we did it, even though ISSTD Conference was cancelled the last minute.

I’m proud of us for that.

(Thank you Christine Forner, 2019 ISSTD President, for taking your picture with us!)

IMG_0303.jpg

We are not going to share more of our own personal story at this time, but sharing this much is a big step. There is THIS very real and personal story HERE, on the Missing and Exploited Children website if you would like to learn more.

Citations for our article are below, with more references available on the StopItNow page HERE.

Baglivio, M. T., Epps, N., Swartz, K., Huq, M. S., Sheer, A., & Hardt, N. S. (2014). The prevalence of Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACE) in the lives of juvenile offenders. Journal of Juvenile Justice, 3(2), 1-23. Retrieved from http://www.journalofjuvjustice.org/JOJJ0302/JOJJ0302.pdf

Bales, Kevin (2003), "Because she looks like a child",  in Hochschild, Arlie; Ehrenreich, Barbara (eds.), Global woman: nannies, maids, and sex workers in the new economy, New York: Metropolitan Books, pp. 207–22.

Barth, J., Bernetz, L., Heim, E., Trelle, S., & Tonia, T. (2013). The current prevalence of child sexual abuse worldwide: A systematic review and meta-analysis. International Journal of Public Health, 58(3), 469-83.

Campagna, Daniel S., and Donald L. Poffenberger. "Child Pornography." The Sexual Trafficking in Children: An Investigation of the Child Sex Trade. Dover, MA: Auburn House Pub., 1988. 116-38. Print.

Campagna, Daniel; Poffenberger, Donald (1988). The sexual trafficking in children: an investigation of the child sex trade. Dover, MA: Auburn House Pub. Co.

Clift, Stephen; Simon Carter (2000). Tourism and Sex. Cengage Learning EMEA. pp. 75–78.

Douglas, E., & Finkelhor, D. (2005). Childhood sexual abuse fact sheet. Retrieved from Crimes Against Children Research Center website: http://www.unh.edu/ccrc/factsheet/pdf/childhoodSexualAbuseFactSheet.pdf

ECPAT International. N.p., n.d. Web. 10 Oct. 2013.

"Facts on commercial sexual exploitation of children" (PDF). ILO. 2004. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2009-01-06.

Gerdes, Louise I.; Brian M. Willis; Barry S. Levy (2006). Prostitution and sex trafficking: opposing viewpoints. Detroit: Greenhaven Press.

Herrmann, Kenneth J., and Michael Jupp. "International Child Sex Trade." The Sexual Trafficking in Children: An Investigation of the Child Sex Trade. By Daniel S. Campagna and Donald L. Poffenberger. Dover, MA: Auburn House Pub., 1988. 140-57. Print.

"Human Trafficking and Prostitution | Essay Examples". Essay Examples. 2018-03-15. Retrieved 2018-04-03.

Kaufman, Michelle R., and Mary Crawford. "Sex Trafficking in Nepal: A Review of Intervention and Prevention Programs." Violence Against Women 17.5 (2011): n. pag. Sage Journals. Web. 8 Oct. 2013.

Munir, Abu Bakar, and Siti Hajar Bt. Mohd Yasin. "Commercial Sexual Exploitation."Child Abuse Review 6.2 (1997): 147-53. Web. 09 Oct. 2013.

Meyers, J. E. B. (2011). The ASPAC handbook on child maltreatment (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

Pais, Marta Santos. "The Protection of Children from Sexual Exploitation Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the Sale of Children, Child Prostitution and Child Pornography." International Journal of Children's Rights 18.4 (2010): 551-66. Criminal Justice Abstracts with Full Text. Web. 09 Oct. 2013.

Roby, J. L. "Women and Children in the Global Sex Trade: Toward More Effective Policy."International Social Work 48.2 (2005): 136-47. Sage Journals. Web. 09 Oct. 2013.

Roby, J.L. (2005). "Women and children in the global sex trade: Toward more effective policy". International Social Work. 48 (2).

Smith, L.A., Vardaman, S. H. & Snow, M. A. (2009). The national report on domestic minor sex trafficking: America’s prostituted children. Retrieved from Shared Hope website: http://sharedhope.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/SHI_National_Report_on_DMST_2009.pdf

Townsend, C. & Rheingold, A.A. (2013). Estimating a child sexual abuse prevalence rate for practitioners: A review of child sexual abuse prevalence studies. Retrieved from www.D2L.org/1in10

UNODC. "Global Report on Trafficking in Persons 2012." United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. N.p., n.d. Web. 8 Oct. 2013.

UNODC. "Global Report on Trafficking in Persons 2012." United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. N.p., n.d. Web. 8 Oct. 2013.

U.S. Department of Justice. Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children: What Do We Know and What Do We Do about It? Washington, DC: U.S. Dept. of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, 2007. Web. 09 Oct. 2013.

U.S. Department of Justice. Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children: What Do We Know UNICEF and What Do We Do about It? Washington, DC: U.S. Dept. of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, 2007. Web. 09 Oct. 2013.

U.S. Department of Justice (2007). Commercial sexual exploitation of children: what do we know and what do we do about it?. U.S. Dept. of Justice, Office of Justice Programs.

U.S. Department of Justice (2015). Child pornography. Retrieved from http://www.justice.gov/criminal-ceos/child-pornography.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Administration on Children, Youth and Families, Children’s Bureau (2015). Child maltreatment 2013. Retrieved from http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/research-data-technology/statistics-research/child-maltreatment.

"Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000". U.S. Department of State. October 28, 2000. Archived from the original on March 12, 2009. Retrieved 2014-03-22.

Willis, Brian M., and Barry S. Levy. "Child Prostitution Is a Global Health Problem."Prostitution and Sex Trafficking: Opposing Viewpoints. By Louise I. Gerdes. Detroit: Greenhaven, 2006. 48-56. Print.

Willis, BM; Levy, BS (2002). "Child prostitution: global health burden, research needs, and interventions". Lancet. 359 (9315): 1417–22.

World Vision. "What is Child Sex Tourism?". World Vision website.

Emma Sunshaw
Resources for Spouses

Many thanks to our previous guest, Ellen Lacter, PhD, who shares these spouse resources with us now:

Heather Tuba: Trauma-Informed Support for Partners of Survivors:
https://www.heathertuba.com/articles/

Robin Brickel, LMFT: How to Repair Love with Trauma-Informed Couples Therapy:
https://brickelandassociates.com/trauma-informed-couples-therapy/

How People Heal From Trauma, Thanks to Helpers:
https://brickelandassociates.com/how-to-heal-after-trauma-helpers/

The Significant Other's Guild to Dissociative Identity Disorder:
http://www.toddlertime.com/dx/did/did-guild.htm

The road less travelled: how to support your dissociative partner, Parts One and Two, by Rob Spring:
https://information.pods-online.org.uk/the-road-less-travelled-part-one-how-to-support-your-dissociative-partner/

https://information.pods-online.org.uk/the-road-less-travelled-part-two-how-to-support-your-dissociative-partner/

The risk of rescuing: pitfalls and promises in supporting dissociative survivors (PODS):
https://information.pods-online.org.uk/the-risk-of-rescuing-pitfalls-and-promises-in-supporting-dissociative-survivors/

My unique vantage point – parenting dissociative identity disorder with dissociative identity disorder, by Carol B:
https://information.pods-online.org.uk/my-unique-vantage-point-parenting-dissociative-identity-disorder-with-dissociative-identity-disorder/

10 Tips For Spouses and Partners of Survivors with Dissociative Identity Disorder, by Kathy Broady, MSW
https://www.discussingdissociation.com/2016/06/10-tips-for-spouses-and-partners-of-someone-with-dissociative-identity-disorder/


Sidran: For Survivors and Loved Ones:
https://www.sidran.org/for-survivors-and-loved-ones/

For parenting dissociative children: Diagnosis and Treatment of Youth with Dissociation, by Fran S. Waters (2016)


Partners With PTSD by Frank Ochberg, M.D.:
http://www.giftfromwithin.org/html/partners.html

Loving a Trauma Survivor: Understanding Childhood Trauma’s Impact On Relationships, Robin Brickel, MA. LMFT
https://brickelandassociates.com/trauma-survivor-relationships/

Supporting a Loved One Through PTSD or Panic Attacks:
http://sometimesmagical.wordpress.com/2013/10/26/supporting-a-loved-one-through-ptsd-or-panic-attacks/

How Childhood Sexual Abuse Affects Interpersonal Relationships:
http://ritualabuse.us/research/sexual-abuse/how-childhood-sexual-abuse-affects-interpersonal-relationships/

Supporting Someone Who Has Been Raped or Sexually Assaulted:
http://www.healthyplace.com/abuse/articles/supporting-someone-who-has-been-raped-or-sexually-assaulted/

Patience Press (for Help for trauma survivors, war veterans, family members, friends and therapists):
http://www.patiencepress.com/patience_press/Welcome.html

Preventing Compassion Fatigue: What Veteran Spouse/Partner Caregivers Need to Know:
http://giftfromwithin.org/html/Compassion-Fatigue-What-Veteran-Caregivers-Need-to-Know.html

Training for lay counselors: http://www.helpers.homestead.com
http://www.ksacc.ca/docs/when_your_partner_was_sexually_abused_as_a_child.pdf?LanguageID=EN-US

The Post Traumatic Stress Disorder Relationship: How to Support Your Partner and Keep Your Relationship Healthy, by Diane England (2007)


If The Man You Love Was Abused: A Couple's Guide to Healing by, Marie H. Browne (2007)


Healing Together: A Couple's Guide to Coping with Trauma and Post-Traumatic Stress by Suzanne B. Phillips (2009)


Ghosts in the Bedroom: A Guide for Partners of Incest Survivors, Ken Graber (1991)

Trust After Trauma: A Guide to Relationships for Survivors and Those Who Love Them, Aphrodite Matsakis (1998)


Allies in Healing: When the person you love was sexually abused as a child, by Laura Davis (1992)

All the Colors of Me: My first book about Dissociation, by Ana Gomez, illustrated by Sandra Paulsen (for kids)

Internal Roar

On the podcast today, we shared about a disaster with the family therapist, where we froze up at simple questions and couldn’t speak or respond… but so much was happening so fast inside.

We said we were able to draw about it later, and wanted to share it so that clinicians could see what the experience is like for survivors, and so that other survivors would understand they are not alone in the experience.

This is raw and vulnerable, and somewhat triggering material, so please care for yourself, as always, before and during and after looking and listening to the podcast.

IMG_9831.jpg
Guest: Dave Berger
dave-berger.jpg

Dave is senior international faculty with the Somatic Experiencing Trauma Institute.  He teaches all levels of the SE training. He is also a part of Dr. Peter Levine’s initial legacy faculty being mentored by Dr. Levine to teach SE master classes.  Dave’s own BASE™: Relational Bodywork and Somatic Education Training™ for trauma practitioners is an integration of his decades of work in behavioral and physical health. As a therapist, teacher, consultant and mentor, Dave’s passion and commitment to deep healing guide his work.

An internationally recognized somatic psychotherapist, Dave brings his knowledge of anatomy, physiology and function of the body, and of psychological and relational dynamics to help clients improve their physical well being and psychological health. With 40 years of clinical practice, Dave provides a unique blend of clinical care for people healing from traumatic injuries and accidents, anxiety, back and neck pain, post-traumatic stress disorder, headaches, panic attacks and chronic pain. He uses a diverse array of traditional and complementary healing practices, integrating his understanding of the relationship between an individual’s emotional challenges, their family system dynamics and cultural issues. In therapy, a client may expect to talk, use body awareness and relaxation, trauma renegotiation, hands-on (when appropriate) interventions, movement and exercise to help in their healing process.

Family systems, psychodynamic psychotherapy, psychobiology and a number of other psychotherapeutic theories inform Dave’s work as a psychotherapist. Understanding the relationship between physiology, body usage and psychology and emotions Dave works along an integrative continuum in his clinical psychotherapy work.

Dave received his bachelor’s degree in Somatopsychology from the University of Maryland and graduate degrees from Stanford University (Physical Therapy) and California Institute of Integral Studies (Psychology with a specialty in Somatic Psychology). He has been a professor in physical therapy and psychology,  and has been adjunct faculty at several colleges. Dave is on faculty with the Somatic Experiencing Trauma Institute and Ergos Institute.  He consults internationally with Somatic Experiencing® and BASE students and practitioners as well as others interested in the field of Somatics.

Turning Toward

This week on the podcast, we referenced some of Gottman’s work for couples as applicable to internal systems as well as survivors working through trauma to try and connect with others.

The Gottman website we mentioned is HERE.

The two articles we quoted specifically are HERE and HERE.

Here is a video, too, by John Gottman himself, about building trust and turning toward:

Emma Sunshaw
Internal and External "Walls"

In the episode about Integration and Differentiation, the article that Dr. E found and was sharing is this one:, along with the “pie charts” she referenced during the podcast:

IMG_8813.jpg

The drawings that our very first therapist did ages ago were something like this, in explaining internal and external walls, and what is helpful and healthy and what makes things more challenging once a survivor is out of danger:

IMG_8814.jpg
Dongles

In the “Fish Tank” episode, the Husband shared about his experience with EMDR. He talked about having headphones he listens to, and small paddles or “dongles” that he holds one of in each hand. He said that he hears beeps and feels vibrations on alternating sides as part of the experience. He talked about the family therapist having a box where she could adjust the speed or other settings of those beeps and vibrations as needed.

In response to this episode, a friend shared a picture of one kind of these devices, though there are different kinds and different ways of doing EMDR with the different tools. This is just one example, and very similar to what the husband was describing.

While he found it particularly useful for his depression, the device itself may be triggering to some survivors of certain kinds of organized or ritual abuse. Some clinicians use a light bar of colored lights instead of this kind of device, which may be triggering to survivors of pornography or traffficking type settings. In addition, EMDR does not help everyone with everything, and we have been told by many survivors and clinicians alike that timing and containment of some sort is critical to a positive experience with EMDR.

That said, many survivors who have used EMDR in safe ways with good clinicians when they are ready for it as an intervention, describe very positive experiences and good results.

This podcast episode was not about EMDR or when to use it or who should or not, but simply about the husband’s experience of it while being treated for depression. The picture is provided simply for those who wanted to see to be able to understand what he was talking about with the “dongles”.

You can listen to other episodes about EMDR specifically to learn more about it, or check out their website HERE.

IMG_8818.jpg
TreatmentEmma SunshawEMDR
Guest: Pam Stavropoulos, PhD (Blue Knot Foundation)

Pam Stavropoulos, PhD

pam 1.jpg

We welcome Pam Stavropoulos, PhD (Politics), Grad. Dip. Psychotherapy to the podcast to share about her research work with complex trauma at Blue Knot Foundation.

Specifically, she shares with us about the recently released 2019 updated Practice Guidelines for the Treatment of Complex Trauma, which you can read HERE. It is available for download for free, with permission to share.

In the podcast, she shares about the research behind the updated guidelines, and also mentions therapist compentancies, which you can read HERE.

A list of selected publications can be viewed HERE.

Guest: Richard Chefetz, MD
chefetz.jpg

Dr. Chefetz is a psychiatrist in private practice in Washington, D.C.

He was President of the International Society for the Study of Trauma and Dissociation (ISSTD) from 2002-2003, and is a Distinguished Visiting Lecturer at the William Alanson White Institute of Psychiatry, Psychoanalysis, and Psychology. He is a faculty member at the Washington School of Psychiatry, the Institute of Contemporary Psychotherapy & Psychoanalysis, and the Washington Baltimore Center for Psychoanalysis. . He is a Certified Consultant at the American Society of Clinical Hypnosis and is trained in Level I and II EMDR.

Dr. Chefetz was editor of “Dissociative Disorders: An Expanding Window into the Psychobiology of Mind” for the Psychiatric Clinics of North America, March 2006, “Neuroscientific and Therapeutic Advances in Dissociative Disorders,” Psychiatric Annals, August 2005, and “Multimodal Treatment of Complex Dissociative Disorders,” Psychoanalytic Inquiry, 20:2, 2000, as well as numerous journal articles on psychodynamic and psychoanalytic perspectives on trauma and dissociation. In 2015 he published Intensive Psychotherapy for Persistent Dissociative Process: The Fear of Feeling Real, with W.W. Norton, in their Interpersonal Neurobiology series.

His website is HERE.