I suspect something very, very horrific has happened in their history. Maybe suffered a traumatic event together.

I took ayahuasca with a brazillian religion called Santo Diame... in the US, we would call them a cult. And cult-like it was! I've smoked DMT many times and I fully encourage "explorers" to start small and smoke it instead of ingesting ayahuasca. It's all very difficult to figure out scientifically, but one of the interesting aspects of ayahuasca to me, was that you could close your eyes and be in another dimension, open them up and basically feel drunk and know everything was OK, get up and walk around.

However, the visions that I had were absolutely violent, with archetypes of the day of the dead and greek mythology emerging while people puked and cried while I was attached to their sound and energies, brains exploding, the power of life telling me it was going to get me, I could fight it all I wanted (I just smiled the whole time), but it was going to get me - and then it let me slide, eventually. DMT has a known effect, that is of "ego-death" or "near death experience"... and I definitely fought it off, having experienced it before. It was a deranged, somewhat fun, somewhat enlightening, traumatic experience that I would recommend to no one. And I can see that it's definitely not a lone man/woman mission as in to dose yourself with this stuff because it's definitely more intense than LSD or mushrooms and the mixture, though simple - would require a bit of practicing and knowledge about it.

I just find smoking DMT to be way better, shorter and much safer, but also WAY more intense and awesome. But, it's certainly not for everyone, it's like unlocking the unknown/impossible laws of the Universe, it's impossible to understand but you understand it while you are there as it is communicated to you; might be just in your brain but somehow nature provided this (bizarre/impossible) experience for you to be able to have.... ---- do not understand

YT description says traumatic kittenhood, and that they're cool now.

Well we seem to be devolving into miscommunication, so let's all be clear! bareboards2, I was not singling you out at all. In fact, you have by and large been the image of civility, so much so that I picture you with a monocle while writing your missives to us.

I too think that MonkeySpank (god help us all) seems to have the most historical and accurate interpretation of the situation; one does not traumatize a people, be they Jews or African Americans for decades and decades and decades and then expect them to up and happily integrate. There's a reckoning that has to happen, and I am sorry if your lilly white ass didn't personally own slaves, you were born into a societal architecture created by those who did and you can't pretend the playing field is level. You can stare at your voting right's act, you can belly ache about how Ashley with her 3.5 didn't get into U State university while a minority did, but it doesn't change the fact that that there's a lot of redress to be done, and it'll take a LONG time to remedy. We have some signs of improvement, with prominent African American politicians and intellectuals taking the stage and garnering universal respect, but that's the tip of the iceberg, and we have a LONG way to go.

Well, that would require watching the whole thing, which may prove traumatic.

He never talked about the bed bug that mates through "traumatic insemination".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bed_bug#Reproduction

"Many people insist that eating animals is “natural” — and therefore morally neutral — because other animals eat animals. But it’s important to realize that, with a few exceptions, when humans kill other animals for food, we’re not doing what animals do in nature. Humans have no biological need to consume meat or any animal products. When animals kill other animals for food, they do as they must, in order to survive; they have no choice in the matter. Many humans, on the other hand, do have a choice, and when people with access to plant-based foods choose to continue eating animals anyway — simply because they like the taste — they are harming animals not from necessity, but for pleasure. Yet harming animals for pleasure goes against core values we hold in common — which is why, for example, we oppose practices like dog fighting on principle. It can’t be wrong to harm animals for pleasure in one instance, but not the other.

Furthermore, it makes no sense to selectively model our behavior around other animals. Do we fornicate or copulate in public like other animals do? No. Do we kill our newborn children based on the fact that certain animals have done so under certain circumstances? Of course not. Yet when it is convenient for our argument, we claim that eating animals is normal and natural because a very small percentage of animals do so. Regardless of what other animals do, if you are not vegan, you are paying someone to needlessly harm animals in a way that would traumatize you to even witness."

"Many people insist that eating animals is “natural” — and therefore morally neutral — because other animals eat animals. But it’s important to realize that, with a few exceptions, when humans kill other animals for food, we’re not doing what animals do in nature. Humans have no biological need to consume meat or any animal products. When animals kill other animals for food, they do as they must, in order to survive; they have no choice in the matter. Many humans, on the other hand, do have a choice, and when people with access to plant-based foods choose to continue eating animals anyway — simply because they like the taste — they are harming animals not from necessity, but for pleasure. Yet harming animals for pleasure goes against core values we hold in common — which is why, for example, we oppose practices like dog fighting on principle. It can’t be wrong to harm animals for pleasure in one instance, but not the other.

Furthermore, it makes no sense to selectively model our behavior around other animals. Do we fornicate or copulate in public like other animals do? No. Do we kill our newborn children based on the fact that certain animals have done so under certain circumstances? Of course not. Yet when it is convenient for our argument, we claim that eating animals is normal and natural because a very small percentage of animals do so. Regardless of what other animals do, if you are not vegan, you are paying someone to needlessly harm animals in a way that would traumatize you to even witness."

Bob, I'm unsure how you can reach the decision that preventing a 13 year old rape victim from terminating an unwanted pregnancy is not a punishment.

Let's say that you or I was raped by a person with HIV and contracted the disease. To mimic the abortion situation, let's also say that there was a large segment of society that, for religious or cultural reasons, felt that treatment of HIV should not be allowed. Would you not feel that you were being punished unfairly by not being allowed treatment for something you had no control over?

In any case, these laws will not stand in the end. They are simply new versions of Jim Crow Laws to prevent what a small segment of society doesn't like. The sad thing is that a lot of young girls and women will be traumatized or die because of them. Religious people need to stop trying to make laws to force people to follow their tenets.

Well, I was raised Catholic and even though my parents weren't particularly devout, I absolutely believed in god up to my early teens. I even went to a Jesuit high school.

I won't pretend that I had some massively traumatic "coming out" as an atheist over the next few years, but it still had its challenges. Ireland in the 90s was still a very Catholic country.

So yeah, if she grew up in some super evangelist home, it would be very difficult. But some things are difficult and you still have to do them.

I wonder how this would go with a male photographer -- quite differently I believe, especially with the generally patriarchal society we live in.

What I loved about this video is even the people who one could argue weren't so attractive, when they smiled and when you took a moment to look at them in the right light, they were quite beautiful.

I agree that that one woman probably had some sort of traumatic experience that gave her such skepticism. I also found it really interesting that there were a handful who you could tell were really, really skeptical, but just not to the point of profanity. Poor people -- they don't believe anyone could find them beautiful.

Lastly, I'm curious as to how objectively beautiful Shea is. If she's a very attractive woman, I could see why some of the people were skeptical. They assumed it was some sort of joke or prank. I could easily see this being a joke or prank and Shea posting this on youtube saying, 'LOLZ LOOK AT THESE UGLY PPL HOO THINK THEIR BEUTIFUL! LULZ!!!!'

On the one hand, that old person is an incredible asshole doing their best to traumatize a train driver, but on the other hand that crossing seems ridiculously unsafe. What the hell, Brazil.

It's an illogical fear to needles.
Don't be too hard on him, it's not his fault.
It could be he had a traumatic incident as a child with needles.

I have a member of my family that is the same way, (I'm not calling them out online), but you don't understand the fear, until you know someone personally, know them, and see them go from a very confident and strong person, until the fear takes over and debilitates them. It makes no sense to us, but it's the most real thing in the world to them.

I'd be more worried about the guys who kill 1,600 people and aren't emotionally traumatized... The fact he's ridiculed by his former pilot mates is disturbing, that they can so distance themselves from killing is scary... of course we have a nation full of people who claim to be pro-life on one hand, yet fully support the preemptive killing of people who haven't done anything to us yet, and indeed may have never participated in any direct or indirect attacks on US soil, let alone against US citizens abroad. It's one thing to target and kill people who were involved in 9/11 or other attacks against US facilities, but preemptively killing people we suspect may become involved is creating a far bigger problem than it solves. This is why we need people like Bernie Sanders rather than any of the other candidates on either side of the aisle, all of whom (besides perhaps Rand Paul, who's fairly heartless towards America's working poor as the rest of his party) will continue the Bush doctrine of shoot and kill first, ask questions later, and never have any regret...