The Trauma myth, Susan Clancy's book and essay 

• See also
  < http://www.ipce.info/ipceweb/Library/overview_memories.htm#Clancy >.

When "victims" of "sexual abuse" are originally "abused" (in non-violent cases) they feel neutral or positive about the events. They feel no guilt or shame - they are unaware that they have been "abused".

When do they actually find out that they have been abused?

When the events are "reconceptualized" within the minds of the "victims", with the help of the "therapist". Only then_do they feel the shame and guilt, followed by anger at the so-called "perpetrator" that the therapist feels they should_ feel.

It seems that Susan Clancy is unfamiliar with the concept of disorders of iatrogenic origin. She treated so-called "victims" of so-called "sexual abuse" (by her own definition, of course).

But these "victims" refused to call it abuse! They said they either didn't mind the abuse, or actually found it enjoyable. And Ms Clancy just couldn't understand it.

So the so-called "abuse" had to be "reconceptualized" within the mind of the "victim". This, of course, was done by the "therapist".

So the "therapist" creates the shame, guilt, and anger within the "victim". Then the therapist finally has a real "victim", one who will finally give testimony to the world about how badly they were abused  - and about how successful the "therapy" has been...

This all goes on, of course, in $120-per-hour sessions of "therapy" for the "victim". Everyone benefits - the "victim" now "truly understands" how they were "victimized", the therapist earns a very good living, the criminal-justice system has grist for their mills, and all is well and good.

Except, of course, there is_ the small question of the "perpetrator" and the destruction of his life, his removal from family and society, the opportunity-cost of this, and the huge amounts of tax-payers money invested in his arrest, prosecution, and incarceration.

But the loss of his ability to generate economic and social benefits for himself, his family, and society in general are acceptable to society, (allegedly) because the "victims" now have the opportunity for "closure" after having suffered from their "abuse" at the hands of the "perpetrators".

Am I understanding all of this correctly?

Something strikes me as wrong in all of this...