
TAW122
Emissary of the right to die.
- Aug 30, 2018
- 7,197
Before I proceed with this thread and article, I wanted to put out some disclaimers to prevent any misunderstanding and also for those who read it to focus on what the main point.
Disclaimer: Even though the title of this thread has the word 'recovery' in them, it is NOT a recovery thread nor indicative of wanting or seeking recovery. It is more about the difference between people who had recovered due to circumstances or external influences pushing them versus their own volition. Ultimately, this thread and article is exploring the topic of those who recovered versus being trapped and forced to recover, as well as the notion of real choice. Additionally, while some points mentioned in this thread may be preaching to the choir here on SaSu, it is more focused on the ethics, logic, and personal liberty regarding actual recovery versus forced into it. While I suppose this could belong in a politics and philosophy section, it is about CTB and bodily autonomy.
With that said, here is the topic. So throughout most of my existence and throughout my time, especially on SaSu, but even outside of SaSu (other forums, platforms, or even IRL), I've seen people who wanted to CTB, but later changed their mind. It's true that there are people who go on towards 'recovery' by their own volition or choice, but then there are also people who end up what looks on the outside to the outsider observer as 'recovery' but really they are in just as miserable shape as they are. If they had been given a choice later on perhaps they may have decided to choose death voluntarily still, but given enough time, be it months, years, or so, they become so accustomed to their 'forced' sentience and life itself that they continue to live, or end up just liking living (which of course appeases the pro-lifers and the mainstream of society). The problem ultimately becomes whether or not the person who was forced continuation of sentience really wanted to live or did they make a false choice?
The Stockholm Syndrome analogy
Another perspective here is that perhaps the people who wanted to CTB and end one's own suffering were perhaps put into a situation where they are not able to escape, and naturally ended up coping with the situation even against their will. While it is not the classic case of "Stockholm Syndrome", more commonly seen through victims of crime, there are similarities. The term "Stockholm Syndrome" refers to the victim of captivity (in this context, the person being trapped, unable to escape actual suffering while in the state of sentience (life) but instead becomes tolerant of their circumstances, let alone even (falsely) enjoying it). In the case of 'forced' sentience, however, it is where sentience holders, aka the gatekeepers and captors (in this case, the collective majority of society, masses and those who don't agree with pro-choice stance or actual true bodily autonomy when it comes to CTB) are the ones who are either actively and continuously (or even passively) keeping people trapped in suffering either by deprivation of reliable (not necessarily peaceful) means of exiting, actively and continuously impinging on their liberties through institutions (including forced detainment, detentions, lockups, etc.), and even psychological manipulation (gaslighting, guilt-trips, shaming tactics, etc.). However, since the victim doesn't have a reliable means of opportunity (either method, time, opportunity) to reliably (let alone peacefully) on one's own terms, the eventually come to either tolerate or enjoy life (perhaps they are feigning it too but just unspoken), which makes them make a false choice.
So in conclusion, I wrote this article mainly since it was an interesting observation that I had and pondered about whether or not the people who actually continued to live really wanted to live (actual recovery, not just being trapped or forced into recovery through tolerance of circumstances), or if they were trapped and then falsely chose to really live. Even if suppose one were choosing recovery (due to lack of means of escaping), maybe it doesn't necessarily mean nor indicate that they enjoy life and wanted to choose it perhaps? It only merely meant that their choice of CTB was heavily restricted that it was not feasible or realistic (or possible but very high chance of failure and possibly permanent damage, making things much worse for said individual(s)) and thus they are only left with one choice, the default choice to persist (not because they wanted to but because they were forced to, physically and perhaps even mentally through pressure, coercion, duress, etc.). What are your thoughts on this?
Disclaimer: Even though the title of this thread has the word 'recovery' in them, it is NOT a recovery thread nor indicative of wanting or seeking recovery. It is more about the difference between people who had recovered due to circumstances or external influences pushing them versus their own volition. Ultimately, this thread and article is exploring the topic of those who recovered versus being trapped and forced to recover, as well as the notion of real choice. Additionally, while some points mentioned in this thread may be preaching to the choir here on SaSu, it is more focused on the ethics, logic, and personal liberty regarding actual recovery versus forced into it. While I suppose this could belong in a politics and philosophy section, it is about CTB and bodily autonomy.
With that said, here is the topic. So throughout most of my existence and throughout my time, especially on SaSu, but even outside of SaSu (other forums, platforms, or even IRL), I've seen people who wanted to CTB, but later changed their mind. It's true that there are people who go on towards 'recovery' by their own volition or choice, but then there are also people who end up what looks on the outside to the outsider observer as 'recovery' but really they are in just as miserable shape as they are. If they had been given a choice later on perhaps they may have decided to choose death voluntarily still, but given enough time, be it months, years, or so, they become so accustomed to their 'forced' sentience and life itself that they continue to live, or end up just liking living (which of course appeases the pro-lifers and the mainstream of society). The problem ultimately becomes whether or not the person who was forced continuation of sentience really wanted to live or did they make a false choice?
The Stockholm Syndrome analogy
Another perspective here is that perhaps the people who wanted to CTB and end one's own suffering were perhaps put into a situation where they are not able to escape, and naturally ended up coping with the situation even against their will. While it is not the classic case of "Stockholm Syndrome", more commonly seen through victims of crime, there are similarities. The term "Stockholm Syndrome" refers to the victim of captivity (in this context, the person being trapped, unable to escape actual suffering while in the state of sentience (life) but instead becomes tolerant of their circumstances, let alone even (falsely) enjoying it). In the case of 'forced' sentience, however, it is where sentience holders, aka the gatekeepers and captors (in this case, the collective majority of society, masses and those who don't agree with pro-choice stance or actual true bodily autonomy when it comes to CTB) are the ones who are either actively and continuously (or even passively) keeping people trapped in suffering either by deprivation of reliable (not necessarily peaceful) means of exiting, actively and continuously impinging on their liberties through institutions (including forced detainment, detentions, lockups, etc.), and even psychological manipulation (gaslighting, guilt-trips, shaming tactics, etc.). However, since the victim doesn't have a reliable means of opportunity (either method, time, opportunity) to reliably (let alone peacefully) on one's own terms, the eventually come to either tolerate or enjoy life (perhaps they are feigning it too but just unspoken), which makes them make a false choice.
So in conclusion, I wrote this article mainly since it was an interesting observation that I had and pondered about whether or not the people who actually continued to live really wanted to live (actual recovery, not just being trapped or forced into recovery through tolerance of circumstances), or if they were trapped and then falsely chose to really live. Even if suppose one were choosing recovery (due to lack of means of escaping), maybe it doesn't necessarily mean nor indicate that they enjoy life and wanted to choose it perhaps? It only merely meant that their choice of CTB was heavily restricted that it was not feasible or realistic (or possible but very high chance of failure and possibly permanent damage, making things much worse for said individual(s)) and thus they are only left with one choice, the default choice to persist (not because they wanted to but because they were forced to, physically and perhaps even mentally through pressure, coercion, duress, etc.). What are your thoughts on this?