Stockholm Syndrome

In my line of work I see plenty of people who exhibit the symptoms of Stockholm syndrome (varying from children to adults).

http://counsellingresource.com/lib/therapy/self-help/stockholm/

I do tend to think that those who bond with their abusers are in a way developing a ego defence system. Where there is no escape, subconsciously the person protects the ego under-threat and the develops a protective bond.

This is particularly evident when trying to report child sexual abuse or domestic violence or rape; the victim does not wish to supply evidence not because they fear the abuser but because they do not wish the abuser to be convicted. This sometimes makes the role of reporting abuse (child or domestic) and getting a conviction very difficult.

To offer perspective:
Having said this; a majority of cases (something like 92%) do not go to the courts as the victim is treated like a villain by our legal systems. Of the remaining 8% that go to the courts only about 10% result in a conviction (usually because of a guilty plea).

Why do people develop Stockholm Syndrome (it does not need to be hostage situations)?

If you, yourself are in an abusive relationship, then please seek professional support.

One of the complexities with Stockholm Syndrome is that the victim of abuse generally sees a lack of abuse as an act of kindness. This is particurly challenging to correct when the victim is a child as they have not yet developed effective cognitive strategies. Within the victims mind they then see authorities as the villain and the abuser as the hero. Any efforts to help the victim become frustrating for authorities as they are often faced with a wall of silence or with concern for the abusers welfare.

It effectively becomes a long term strategy for authorities and a wait and see game. Unfortunately, in some circumstances it is too late for the children and it turns into a media frenzy when the situation becomes public. Then a scapegoat needs to be found.

This line of work that you find yourself heavily exposed to people with Stockholm Syndrome, its not Bank Robbery, is it?

Women are attracted to dominate males. Most women have an abuse fetish. Thinking about being tied up on the railroad tracks, tied up, or being laid on the table as a sacrifice is a fantasy for most women. Any modern feminist who has no such fantasies has been turned so assexual, so masculinized, that she probably has no sense of adventure at all anymore. Either that or just plain lying.

Females are passive. A bank robber is a scavenger, a fit mate, a provider. Being attracted to a bounty hunter, a bringer of things. People pay good money to get kidnapped. The role of a woman is to supplement and bring health to a man. It brings her pleasure to do so, and if her body is what brings him health all the more pleasure to both. If her body is used as a means of emotional release, she grins and bears it. A violent man is usually more aggressive in the wild, a better hunter, and often defends her to the death, since other males beating his punching bag is a violation of his own sexual space. No greater fury will you see in the wild.

I think your describing Snidely Whiplash from Rocky and Bullwrinkle:

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snidely_Whiplash
media.giphy.com/media/yutu1gNPcVZde/giphy.gif

Ummm… just at what age did you get the first hints of arousal at the thought of being tied up on the railroad tracks? Were you a little girl, say, the age a child is when they spend a Saturday watching nothing but cartoons?

Do women also have a even more intense sexual attraction to men dressed in Red who untie them from said railroad tracks?

Also, can I get forewarned payments for kidnapping you in advance? Say like, $5000 in advance? I’d like the contract in writing. I’ll keep you in a storage rental nearby for a few hours or something.

Cartoons are exaggerations of the base mechanisms of Reality. Without cartoons, there would still be the same natural arousal patterns. Cartoons can only activate what’s already there. Sales people cannot sell things that people do not naturally want. Watching a muscular man on TV does not turn a heterosexual male, queer. The man, if he were a man, would simply change the channel. If a cartoon was not enjoyable, the child, would pout, and whine, and simply change the channel. Cartoons can only amplify a sexuality, what’s already there.

Males are more attracted to a woman in red. Women, are generally attracted to the thrill of action. Studies show that women in intense situations, bond with their mates, more intensely.

Would being untied from a railroad track heighten arousal? Likely not, since the hero would be somewhat percieved as the thrill killer, the one who dampened her arousal. The danger of a railroad track, is passive, unseen, amplified by her own mind.

The danger of dangling on a ledge, is real, active, external. Being rescued from a cliffhanger situation, would likely increase the thrill, sending a wave of euphoria, magnetism toward her hero, her savoir, increasing her arousal. The hero would be seen as her loyal savoir, not as the party poop who spoilt’ her fun.

So, how do you view the effects of this show, its been heavily showed in Canada for years. Has it manipulated the outlook of Canadian feminists, and is it the likely explanation for why all of Gib’s posts sound so gay to American ears?

Surely you must know by now, feminists don’t have souls. Why would they watch cartoons?

Most of their facts seem to be derived from comic strips, so its a logical inference.

I’m willing to bet most feminists watched cartoons. It might just be the culprit.

Think we can build a counterfactual statistical inference from our intuitional suppositions and suspicions for building a solid, scientific case here, that most Canadian Feminists watched Rocky and Bullwrinkle, and are particularly detached from the common world as a result.

Come to think of it, I had run into one of those feminist tards who were a fan of the show. I dont think the show is the cause of feminism, though.

Generally, feminists don’t watch cartoons, because their attention spans are so short, that even the modern cartoon cannot satisfy them.

Its enough evidence for a start.

See, Canada is a great paradox. It has the same root source, for culture and colonial population, experienced a early 20th century population spike, but can’t do anything right save for those things that make them hipocrits, like Edmonton being both a massive oil exporter and north America’s greenist city… Fucking contradiction if there ever was.

We have in Alaska farms and dairy produce farther north than anything Canada ever pulled off, and Canada’s population is still embarrassingly small. I think because instead of putting dick in pussy, all they do is put dick in butt.

I’ll give you a ethical scenario… let’s say the UN saved a tribe from genocide, and wanted a city in the west to settle them. One was a rough city, a relatively high murder rate, but also a booming economy and jobs, and good birth rate, or Vancouver. In Vancouver, the birthrate is frighteningly low, producing well below sustainability for population growth.

Liberals influenced by the Canuck Feminist mode of thought would say avoid the murders, it will harm their regrowth, move them to peaceful Vancouver. If you move them to Vancouver, the population would begin to drastically reduce over several generations till you only have a handful. You would have eight grandparents hoping a single shared grandson doesn’t fuck his nuts up in a Lacrosse Match, as he is all that can carry on their lineage. Everyone that turns gay does the work it would of taken a machette wielding genocidal warrior months to do, hunting his ancestors down in the bush.

In the end, entire tribe dies off, save maybe a survivor or two who emigrates to Washington State. 5-6 generations of living as a Canadian does the work of a warlord… A complete genocide. That’s how paleo-geneticists will someday view it.

Where do Canadians get their values? Not from school. School teaches science, and everything they believe in goes against science. Its faith, faith in a desire to die.

Where did they get this? Not family values from the old country, cause america has that too. No, from Canadian television… acquired at a young age. Their cartoons. Their cartoons make them hate, and deny life.
25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_maoc3 … o1_500.jpg

Abused women will tell you ‘they love him’ and ‘the sex is great’, but to get intimate with the one that keeps abusing them must take a lot of stupidity

Most women are stupid.This is news?

Humans live in a concrete jungle and their minds dont behave as you would expect. Second, women being stupid, and being told they are stupid, turns them on, so its an uphill battle for them to try and be any different than the bimbos they are. Since, being a bimbo is what makes them feel alive, even if they are bit repulsed at themselves and their man.

Trixie, are you Pandora? You sound a lot like her.

…emm … not unless drugs have gotten involved.

No, but I would like to see her box.

Wake me when the subject of government Stockholm Syndrome over entire populations is discussed or breached upon here.

You want to talk about Stockholm Syndrome in great lengths? Great, let’s start there.

No, we grew up watching Emily of New Moon -the crowning achievement of Canadian Feminist media productions.

In the series opener, we see young Emily Starr: poor, destitute schoolgirl from Prince Edward Island, disowned by her rich relatives, because her mother married a poor hapless writer. At school, Emily’s teacher is a tyrant. He starts beating a kid, simply because he is an Indian. What does Emily do, but play the knight in shining armor, dashing to the poor little Indian boy’s rescue. So bad teacher beats Emily and Indian kid to a pulp. And wouldn’t you know -now it’s daddy to the rescue -he beats mean teacher to a pulp. But daddy dies, leaving this poor little girl an orphan -left to fend for herself in a world ruled by men, and where women are nobodies. But Emily has the example of her father, and she will not subject herself to tyrants. And (surprise, surprise) most of Emily’s tyrants turn out to be women. (This is probably why the CBC eventually dropped the show, even though it wasn’t that bad, really.) She has no need for a knight in shining armor, but, if she did need one, it would be Jimmy, the lovable simpleton, whose brain was damaged, when his sister pushed him down a well. Can you believe that? -a guy scarred for life, because of something a mean old sister did to him as a kid.

Presumptuously speaking for Jr Wells, he is a serious and actual psychologist (unlike the majority of commenters and moderators). He and I would largely agree beyond the common, yet certainly disagree before the top/elite.

What they chose to call “Stockholm Syndrome” is in fact, merely a common, should be expected, reaction for anything/one that/who has found something that has been very significantly missing in their lives … “HARD CORE REALITY”. The love for which came from the desperate desire for the certainty of it. Who of you really believes in true certainty, versus the propaganda of insecure uncertainty?

Similar reactions can be found in the world of BDSM, not because of some mental illness, but because of some social illness.

Exactly.