I disagree. I saw a ton of stuff I never should have seen at that age. It didn't scar me for life, but it's desensitized me to a lot of terrible things. Unless you're a doctor, I just don't think it's healthy to look at NSFL gore, go "meh", and move on to something else. I also occasionally have those images flash in my head. I don't want them there, but there's nothing I can do about that now.
(Granted, the same thing would have happened if I first saw them in my 20s, but at least I would have known what not to click.)
I don't think that desensitization is an inherently bad thing. There are any number of things that people become desensitized to as they grow up.
In this modern society, there are many adults who have never so much as seen a dead body (having never even gone to wakes). In previous generations, and in different societies, seeing dead bodies is common place and does not have the same power to disturb. Does it harm a child to desensitize them to the sight of a dead human body? I don't think so. Does it help? Probably. It opens them up to being able to experience a wider range things, even if it is just going to somebodies wake, being able to watch that optional-attendance autopsy video in highschool, or consider becoming a doctor.
Further, in particularly prudish societies people may not be desensitized to exposed human flesh. Is an Amish child going to be damaged by the sight of a bare ankle? Is an American child going to be damaged by the sight of a finnish sauna? I sincerely doubt it. On the other hand, which is going to have a more difficult time wearing speedos when they join the swim team?
Many humans in industrialized societies are unaccustomed to the sight of an animal being slaughtered and butchered. Are children that grow up in farming communities where they are desensitized to this somehow at a disadvantage when compared to children who grow up in urban communities and only know meat as "that stuff that comes from the store"?
Surely you would agree that there are limits, socially determined or otherwise? Would you be OK with your child seeing a motorcyclist's head blown off? A man's distended anus? There are no limits on the internet. I saw all these things because I didn't know any better, or because I was morbidly curious. It didn't ruin me or give me PTSD or anything, but it definitely shaped my personality. I regret it now, in my mid-twenties.
I'd draw the line at where PTSD is actually induced. IE, actual damage.
Replace "motorcyclist missing a head" with "photos of Hiroshima or liberated nazi death camps" and I don't think anybody would think it particularly strange that disturbing images are available to view. Yeah, there is historic significance behind those examples, but that doesn't really come into play when considering the effects of disturbing images on people, does it?
It's interesting that you would draw the line at "photos of Hiroshima or liberated nazi death camps" because this is exactly what I was shown in school (at age 13 or 14) in history lessons. I assume the goal was to shock in order to remember that yes, the holocaust really happened, and it is our responsibility to not let something like this happen again (this is in Europe by the way). I know my friends were also into looking at gore pictures online around that age, even if I personally never felt the need/want to.
But what's for sure is that the images of mass graves and emaciated bodies are stuck in my mind probably forever, and I don't think it's a bad thing as long as it came with proper guidance. It's not the same thing to see them in school with a proper explanation and to stumble upon them by randomly clicking around online on your own in your room.
To be clear, I don't draw the line at "photos of Hiroshima or liberated nazi death camps", that is an example of something that I believe is very far away from the line (on the side of being acceptable).
I could be wrong, but I think PTSD can be induced with images.
The Hiroshima/Nazi photos were powerful because they were such a rare display of extreme violence. (At least, that's how I remember feeling when I first saw them.) Plus, their impact was lessened because they were grainy, old, and black and white. Would you be OK with kids today seeing a modern mass grave -- bodies hacked up, heads cut off, etc.? Me, I'd be wary.
If there was a decent chance of standard internet gore causing PTSD, then it would be an epidemic. Most kids have unfiltered unsupervised access to the internet (particularly now in the era of portable internet connected devices), but they seem to be turning out fine.
I think it is good for kids to see photographs of modern atrocities and war crimes. I wouldn't want them to make the mistake of assuming that is something restricted to fiction and history.
I don't think the "physically ill" feeling is necessary to appreciate the severity or magnitude of those sort of images. In fact, I suspect those sort of feelings cloud the mind and prevent you from taking it all in. An academic appreciation for the horrors of reality is more important that a "gastrointestinal" appreciation.
Of course they're going to seem to turn out fine. The effects, when they exist, are mostly private and easy to hide.
I'm not going to defend the PTSD hypothesis in particular, or that it's important to be aware of past horrors. But there are real forms of trauma that only require seeing things, and it doesn't much matter whether it's in real life or a picture, only whether it's truly believed.
>I could be wrong, but I think PTSD can be induced with images.
You're wrong. I know tumblr likes to use the word "trigger" for just about everything, but real diagnosed PTSD is predicated on events significantly more traumatizing than seeing some photographs. There's nothing life-threatening about an image, no matter how disturbing.
> I know tumblr likes to use the word "trigger" for just about everything
While I also find the use of "trigger warnings" rather strange, that usage has to do with triggering reactions that stem from actual PTSD, not that the images themselves can induce it. I know shooting victims can be troubled by fireworks, I don't doubt abuse victims can be troubled (or triggered) by images as well. I don't think that alone should be reason to censor everything we do, but that doesn't mean we can't try to empathize with those that have experienced terrible things either.
> I know tumblr likes to use the word "trigger" for just about everything
>> (...) that usage has to do with triggering reactions that stem from actual PTSD, not that the images themselves can induce it.
>>> And yet, that's exactly what people are doing here.
And I agree that that is silly, was that unclear? Or are you saying that images cannot trigger reactions? I know that for me, looking at images from a time/place of trauma can take me back -- but luckily I've never encountered a trauma severe enough to result in PTSD.
Friends that have seem to be quite easily shocked by related images (say a picture of an abusing spouse) -- and while PTSD is treatable (and therefore no-one is doomed to avoid certain images forever) that doesn't mean that there aren't periods after an incident it might be painful (and maybe counter to recovery) to be faced with certain images?
> that doesn't mean we can't try to empathize with those that have experienced terrible things either
>> Please, continue to lecture someone with diagnosed PTSD about being nice to people with PTSD.
I didn't say be nice (although I think it is good to be nice to people), I said empathize.
I think the crux is that you were "morbidly curious". Being denied access through one medium isn't going to deter someone curious enough. Sure the internet is a HUGE medium, and it's a lot easier to get access to that material using the internet, but that content's been around for almost as long as we've had photography.
I was morbidly curious to the extent that if somebody put a nasty link in front of me, I would have followed it. But I didn't actively seek those things out. To some extent, it was a test of macho-ness: can I handle this gore? What about this birth defect? I think a lot of kids are like that.
I regret it because I feel it's shaped my personality, lessened my sense of empathy, and put a bunch of disgusting images in my head that I'll never be able to get rid of.
I've personally observed a big difference between my reaction to pictures/videos vs. the real thing. When my dads bone peeked out of his arm after breaking it i almost vomited, but gore doesnt phase me. Normal porn doesnt do much for me, but in real life, even just my clothed girlfirend can have me standing at attention.
PS, I don't care what you believe, but please don't downvote just because you disagree with something. It's passive-aggressive and it ruins communities.
Use your words.
(This was in response to my comment getting downvotes.)
Perhaps, but I think the bigger issue is that downvotes can make your comment illegible. If you spend any time on Reddit, you'll know that the vote system pushes down any comments that go against the grain and reinforces the echo chamber effect. Upvotes can do that too, but to a lesser extent.
Personally, I much prefer linear discussions with hidden favorites, like Metafilter.
I've noticed myself showing a lack of empathy when horrible things happen to people who aren't close to me. This is especially the case with photos of war or famine. I really feel like I should have a visceral reaction, but I've just seen it all before.
As I said, I also sometimes see these images in my head. I don't want to have anything to do with them, but now they're impossible to get rid of.
I would be careful not to confuse having a reaction with having empathy. If nothing you do can stop that war or famine, then an emotional reaction serves no one. Is it healthier? That's subjective.
(Granted, the same thing would have happened if I first saw them in my 20s, but at least I would have known what not to click.)