1nvisibletears (1nvisibletears) wrote in ana_debate,
1nvisibletears
1nvisibletears
ana_debate

Moving on from my site posting / What is wrong with pro-ana?

We could sit here and mock my website all day, but it's rather sidetracking. ...So who thinks "pro-ana" is wrong, and why? Also, let us make it known that "pro-ana" is a reference to online media and communities that include three types of people/opinion; a) those who believe anorexia is a lifestyle, not a malady; b) those who suffer from anorexia as a malady, not a lifestyle yet refuse treatment; c) many with a neutral opinion between "a" and "b" - And finally, the inclusion of bulimics, binge&purge disorder, binge disorder, self-injurers, and eating disorders not otherwise specified. What's wrong with them having communities that aren't recovery based?
  • Post a new comment

    Error

    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    default userpic

    Your IP address will be recorded 

  • 53 comments
If anorexia is a lifestyle, is schizophrenia a lifestyle? Is clinical depression a lifestyle?

What's wrong with them having communities that aren't recovery based?

Nothing. What I object to is communities that actively hamper recovery. Communities that advocate faking a (different) mental illness in order to get prescription drugs (illegal as well as retarded). Communities that give "tips and tricks" on how people can harm themselves.

You mentioned in another post leaving alcoholics to be homeless; what about setting them up with a goddamn home-brew kit?


Why do you guys mock "pro-ana?" Does anyone here even have personal experience with mental illness?

Very generally speaking, the people who get worked up the most about "pro-ana" are the ones who have personal experience with mental illness. That's why they give a damn. The people who shrug and ignore and refuse to take it down even when it violates their own TOS are the people who don't understand quite how insidious and destructive mental illness can be.


Also: there are so many things I want to say to you that I think my head's gonna explode. WTF.
I just posted nearly this same comment to someone else. The point here is that some people's coping skills are better than being dead, even if they aren't a positive route to recovery. I have suffered my whole life and I find the pro-ana sites to be the most uplifting thing I've seen in a while. Do you think it's nice to see yourself as "disordered" all the time? You assume that we aren't sick? I'm sure you've never been hospitalized and given shock therapy treatments at sixteen. I'm sure you've never slit your wrist to the tendon. I'm sure you've never suffered hallucinations and paranoia. I bet you've never been gang raped twice, and I bet you weren't molested by a man at church when you were eight years old. I bet you haven't tried every psychiatric medication on the market and proven to be a resistant case. I bet you aren't labelled "patient 32 B" in a national health study on the worst cases of mental illness ever recorded. I bet you don't have eight diagnoses either. When you do have all that, sometimes embracing your illness is the only way to live with it, or else die. You have no idea what it's like to be a person who lives in true and pure suffering from the first bout of consciousness at age three. If you took a walk in my shoes, you'd trip before you even made one step.
You're right, I haven't been given shock treatments.

...

Oh, and I'm probably not patient 32B anywhere. My number is longer.

...

...Yeah. I can take this kinda bullshit, because like you say, different people have different coping skills. But don't you dare go off at bloodquartz like that. If you've been through all this, then you know exactly what you are saying and how goddamn brutal it is. You asked for our opinions and we gave them. Pro-ana makes us angry and upset. Your vicious attack is just that: vicious and cruel.
Why does it anger and upset you? The other side of the coin with anger is fear you know. If you don't like pro-ana material, you shouldn't read it. C'mon, you wouldn't go down to the library and demand the burning of every copy of Mein Kampf. You should examine why it upsets you so much that other people have differing opinions and lifestyles. You should examine why you have such unfounded anger toward others.
You know when I said I had so many things I wanted to say I thought my brain explode?

I totally underestimated the levels of brain-explodey this could go to.

I don't like pro-ana material; I consider it harmful and dangerous to a group of society who are not mentally equipped to fully defend themselves. What upsets me is not that it's a differing opinion or lifestyle, but that it is a harmful one. Further, what upsets me is not just that it's harmful, but in cases like this pro-ana sites when a link is being advertised that encourages a group of people to act in ways that harm themselves as well.

If you truly like debate, as you say, please reply to the meaning behind my comment, rather than one tiny little facet that's unrelated to the basic debate. That better?
Firstly, it should be noted that things like McDonald's food additives and complications from tobacco and alcohol cause many-a-number more fold of deaths each day than pro-ana groups are "responsible" for in a year.

Second however and most importantly, I will say again, I believe it is wrong to undermine the mentally ill as unequipped or less able to make decisions for themselves in any way. That's an old fashioned opinion and it's been proven to be false. In almost any case that an adult is committed to a hospital on a 5150/72 hr hold cannot be held any longer than that 72 hours without a court ruling, and the adult has the law on their side for the right to sign out of the clinic, even if they are still a danger to themselves or others. That's because mentally ill people are not incapable of making life choices for themselves. Their choices may be different, even odd or wrong to others but they're still valid because there is certainly no evidence of any lack of intelligence or incapability. Your opinion of this reminds me of when women were considered "hysterical" and handicapped and mentally ill individuals were locked up behind bars in stone cold cells to protect them from their own assumed lower intelligence.
Firstly, why should those facts be noted? We are debating pro-ana. Do you mean that I must first outlaw guns and save the whales before I can turn my attention to poverty? I can't protest violence against women in my country because it's worse in other countries? You're operating under the fallacy of "but we're not as bad as these guys".

Second, however, I believe the mentally ill (and I'm including myself in this) are on some matters less able to make well-judged decisions for themselves on some things. "Vulnerable" is not the same as "unequipped". Mental illness affects thought processes; affects emotion; affects a huge and varied number of cognitive and physical processes. Brain scans highlight the differences in activity when image perception is skewed.

I am not advocating forced treatment (that is a seperate debate). I am, however, advocating that we fight against encouraging or enabling others to worsen their illnesses.
Anorexia is markedly different from all other mental illnesses. Anorexics have no irregularity with levels of serotonin, dopamine or norepinephrine, as the depressed and bipolar do. Anorexia cannot be treated with medications either, unless the anorexic has an accompanying illness on the side that affects levels of neurotransmitters. Anorexia is a behavior that develops from poor mother-daughter relationships, meaning poor nature AND poor nuture. Anorexia is believed to be a psychological disorder, not a psychiatric illness, even though it is listed in the DSM-V-R. Therefore, anorexics make choices for themselves that are not affected by typical "unequippedness" that depressed patients display due to unbalance neurotransmitter levels.
Anorexia is a behavior that develops from poor mother-daughter relationships

*falls over laughing* Oh, the hell with this. Sure, whatever. You go live in your world, and I'll live over here in mine. 'Cause, um...that's just a little too simplistic for my tastes. Wouldn't it be nice if everything was that black and white? Maybe you need to believe it is. If it helps, go for it. I believe your site is harmful and morally objectionable, but I'm not going to persuade you, so I'm going to go take a long walk in the rain outside and climb trees. It seems more productive.
Consider a common trend in anorexic girls' relationships with "Mom"

Mom is obsessed with her own narcissistic traits, constantly talking about her weight, comparing her size and her daughters' to celebrities and magazine articles; Mom stands in front of the mirror talking about her image negatively nearly everyday; Mom is completely out of touch with child's needs or emotions and expresses love through talking about the child's size or pubescent development, particularly "fatty" curves

Daughter reaches a pubescent age and sees development of fat deposits. Mom makes fun of daughter. Daughter secretly begins purging to try and lose weight, gain control and appease Mom's high standard opinion

Mom catches daughter purging and smacks and threatens daughter (out of misguided love). Daughter interprets this as getting in trouble for being something bad (fat) that they can't control. Daughter develops eating disordered behavior. Mom tries to ignore any signs.

...I'm an ethnographer and cultural anthropologist. I surveyed over 50 random subjects, girls ages 8-19 and discovered this trend in 99% of cases in which this exact model was retold to me 48 out of the fifty interviews I conducted. I'm a researcher too, you know. I'm not an idiot.
Teach those girls how to fool some doctors into prescribing inappropriate medications that they can abuse to reinforce their patterns of despair. Then study the results of your advocacy. You're an academic, after all. Does teaching young women how to fall deeper into victimization liberate them, or bring them to more despair? What stories do they tell of the pharmacological abuse enabled by techniques you teach them?

I know a guy who went to nursing school. Instead of becoming a nurse, he became a drug dealer. Can he still claim to be trained as a nurse while selling cocaine and other drugs? He's certainly not an idiot. I think that's a major part of my concern.
Weight loss drugs aren't the problem. They're are the symptom, and whether or not they are obtained or taken is arbitrary to the overall aquisition of the disease.
But you're a scientist, right? Right? Compare the outcomes of those you've turned on to stimulants vs. those who do not. Aquisition? Why are you talking about aquisition? I'm talking about recovery. And you are not.

1nvisibletears

9 years ago

mcfnord

9 years ago

1nvisibletears

9 years ago

mcfnord

9 years ago

1nvisibletears

9 years ago

mcfnord

9 years ago

Um, Ok. If you are a researcher - you should know that firstly; any sample pool under 100 stands as statistically inviable; your pool seems rather restrictive under any research models i've ever learnt AND the first thing you should have been taught is that correlation does not equal causality! Please tell me you're only first year because if not this is just getting very very scary - go reread your text books, there should be sections in there about researchers impartiality and y'know - ethics (and you might also want to brush up on cultural empiricism as well). I'm not even going to go into how flawed this all is sounding.
There is more evidence to link sexual abuse to eating disorders with an 89% concordance rate in a multinational study - what you say can be one proposed 'theory' yes, but so too other stipulations that most of us with any experience will laugh at. Might I suggest you keep up with your reading? Your information is quite frankly not resounding with current studies that i've read. You might want to check up your facts re - neurotransmitters. I don't have the articles right here in front of me, but i'm pretty damn sure that if I go looking I can quote you published proof from recent journals that disprove those stipulations. I'm sorry, but I can't stand to have someone read this and think what you are saying is undisputed, unflawed fact. On both a personal and an academic level I just can't.
I'm a bachelor's of science in anthropology. And, first of all, fifty samples is definitely acceptable if the samples are completely random. If I'd gathered them all online from or not from pro-anas, I'd have a major discrepancy because my search would then be narrowed to anorexic girls who have computers and internet access. I traveled with my project manager who took nearly a thousand random samples that was included with my fifty. I was in an instructional on data collection. Second, stating any one statistic is not actually a preferred validity because most percentage facts can be twisted by the way they're stated. And yes, eating disorders are frequently seen as coping strategies used by girls and women in sexually abusive settings. That still doesn't change the previous theory I mentioned. But above all, no one seems to acknowledge the one thing I've been saying that ends this debate. We, the free people of America, from anas to White Power leaders, can believe whatever they want, speak or publish information about what they believe and it's entirely legal and protected by the constitution. The legality surrounding "harm" does not apply to pro-ana sites because it is the indiviudal or the parents' right to discriminate with the material they read, as well as the right to NOT look at it and/or put controls on their computer to protect their child from "harm." Whether or not one opinion is an absolute truth, a lie or just plain ridiculous, it's a free opinion and that has to respected and tolerated.

mcfnord

9 years ago

1nvisibletears

9 years ago

mcfnord

9 years ago

1nvisibletears

9 years ago

mcfnord

9 years ago

1nvisibletears

9 years ago

mcfnord

9 years ago

1nvisibletears

9 years ago

1nvisibletears

9 years ago

mcfnord

9 years ago

1nvisibletears

9 years ago

mcfnord

9 years ago

1nvisibletears

9 years ago

mcfnord

9 years ago

1nvisibletears

9 years ago

bloodquartz

9 years ago

1nvisibletears

9 years ago

bloodquartz

9 years ago

1nvisibletears

9 years ago

thechinesecurse

9 years ago

bloodquartz

9 years ago

1nvisibletears

9 years ago

Anorexia is a behavior that develops from poor mother-daughter relationships

That's actually been documented in the research literature. True, not all people with crappy mothering become eating disordered, but virtually all eating disordered women had crappy mothering.
"Anorexics have no irregularity with levels of serotonin, dopamine or norepinephrine, as the depressed and bipolar do."

The depressed and bipolar may not either. Ask any honest psychiatrist, chemical imbalance is only the presumed cause of these disorders, so that pharmaceutical companies can make a profit. No one knows for sure what the reason behind depression, for example, is. A lot of times, psychiatrists knowingly prescribe anti-depressants to patients hoping for a placebo effect.
Also, why is it anyone's job to protect the mentally ill from harming themselves if they so choose? That automatically insists that the mentally ill are incapable of making choices for themselves and should have legal rules and guidelines to "maintain" them. Even the most psychotic killer still has a choice in behavior when committing a murder. The mentally ill should not be referred to as incapable and in need of stern direction.
Uh, the reason we lock psychotic killers up is because we think they're gonna make a bad choice. The whole point of mental illness is that it's...a...mental illness. It's not a lifestyle. No more than multiple sclerosis is a "lifestyle". Or muscular dystrophy. Mental illness by definition affects your thinking.
They still have the right to make that choice. And they will also be considered to have the right to be put in prison based on our legal system. They hurt others. Anorexics, suicidal people, pro-ana and pro-suicide groups concern one individual causing harm to themself. If women have been given the right to their body in nearly every state, to choose an abortion, then why aren't self-harming individuals allowed to exist freely in their state or mind which is not dangerous to others. If they gather together in forums to socialize, why should that be controlled or disallowed? Each person has the right to their own body... The right to cut oneself, kill oneself, abort one's fetus, starve oneself or share anything about the ability to control one's body in public forum are both American priveledges and god-given rights to being a human being.
As I said, it's not my constitution. I am not American. The pro-ana debate is not limited to the United States; I'm debating morality, not your laws, and thank fuck for that.

Abortion is not relevant to this debate any more than your comments about colour, sexuality or politics. You seem to be appealing to emotions more than facts. Your list of "rights" is nothing more than your opinion.

Gathering together in forums shouldn't be disallowed, but when those forums advocate and give tips on how to get away with harmful behaviour, those forums are leading to harm to people who are already vulnerable, and that's wrong.

(As far as the right to kill yourself, isn't attempted suicide still a crime in most U.S. states? *arched eyebrow*)
You are an absolutist concerning morals. That is fine, but you still must live and let others live by their own morals. Whether there is an absolute "right" way is an opinion in itself and not something for one to determine for someone else. For some people, murder is okay. That is their lifestyle. They suffer the consequences of their actions in their given society, whether they be facility lock-down or jubilation in the human sacrifice of another tribe's warrior. This same truth applies to pro-ana beliefs.
I can not beleive what I am reading!! You are so desperate to defend the undefendable that you have reached the point where you defend pedofhilous and murderes arguing that it is ok what they think because is their liberty of expression! And it is a harmful liberty. Harm is equally bad when it is made to others as when it is made to oneself. It is like saying we should let a group of squizofrenics help each other to keep on being squizofrenic. They are mentally blind and they need NORMAL people to stop them from hurting themselves and their loved ones. Is the same with anorexic and the people who want to censore pro ana sites. By the way, anorexia is the most superfulous illnes Ive ever heard of, I wonder what would the hungry children in Africa would think about this.
Anorexia/bulimia is NOT A lifestyle choice. O_o That's like saying lung cancer is a lifestyle choice because the person chose to smoke cigarettes. People who make anorexia a lifestyle choice are kidding themselves--anorexia is an illness.


Why do you guys mock "pro-ana?" Does anyone here even have personal experience with mental illness?

This is exactly why I'm going to be a clinical psychologist--people who suffer from this illness don't see that what they're doing harms everyone and helps no one.

he point here is that some people's coping skills are better than being dead, even if they aren't a positive route to recovery.
They're comforting until they ARE dead, simply because they're not on the road to recovery. I think some people don't grasp the fact that others DO die from this--every day. I've seen some say, "Oh, I'll never get that sick", but when you have such an illness and already don't think you're sick, you'll never know when how much is too much. The human body is not a toy.

I'm American, but I agree with what the others are saying: this is not just an American issue. This is a global issue, and not everyone has the same constitutional rights that we do. In other countries, people CAN be punished for what they write on the internet. Hell, in America you can be punished for what you write on the internet if it's even remotely threatening.

And if these types of places are allowed on the internet, why are they being deleted from MSN groups, Yahoo and Xanga? Because the people who run those places do not want anyone advocating self-harm in any way.
How will ANYONE ever get better if people suck them under? And hell, have you stopped to think that some people WANT to stop, but the praises and compliments of others who suffer the same illness drags them back into the disease?
Is that fair to you?

Murder is NOT a lifestyle--it's an act. It's an act that is punishable by law. While people cannot dictate what you do with your body for the most part, they can make it so you can't drag other people with you.

Pro-anorexia sites that don't put it out there that they don't wish their illness on anyone and make it clear that their site is not for people who wanna lose a few vanity pounds are a fucking joke.
"Anorexia/bulimia is NOT A lifestyle choice. O_o That's like saying lung cancer is a lifestyle choice because the person chose to smoke cigarettes."

Actually, lung cancer due to smoking cigarettes IS a lifestyle choice. That's why it says that warning on every pack of cigarettes.

Living a healthy lifestyle nd getting lung cancer because of genetics or some other reason that cannot be controlled is an example of NOT being a lifestyle choice.

On the other hand, eating disorders are somewhat of a lifestyle choice. It starts off by not putting food in your mouth (lifestyle choice), but then becomes more OCD probably due to the brain behaving irrationally from starvation (not a lifestyle choice). Speaking from personal experience, the less I ate, the worse the OCD got (which I don't normally even suffer from).

So, what I'm trying to say, is that the pro-ana sites are an outlet for people with eating disorders for either their OCD tendencies, boredom from insomnia (also brought on by starvation) or just because we feel very alone a lot of the time. If someone is truly ready to stop or truly has no desire to have an ed, it's not going to affect them.