I agree with your point and you give a very convincing example. Still, I object quite strongly to the phrasing “[...] that things like this are almost entirely made traumatic by society’s socially constructed ideas about them.”
Why “almost entirely”?
Here some ingredients to my view:
There are vast individual differences in neuroticism and ability to process potentially-traumatic events.
Just like some phobias develop more commonly than others, some experiences are more likely to elicit trauma than others.
On trauma reactions, there might be biological priors that make people more afraid of “bad agents” than “bad environment,” just like there are priors that children are less likely to learn to become scared of outlets/power stations and more likely to learn fear of snakes. (And maybe it’s not a “prior” per se but rather a logical fact that agents are less predictable than the environment and it makes logical sense to be more scared of unpredictable things.)
Society’s take on what’s dangerous/scary/bad isn’t entirely random; instead, there’s often a wisdom it.
Now, looking at the example in the OP with the above background assumptions, I form the following view.
The example has some features that make it more conducive to eliciting trauma than other experiences (i.e., there are good reasons why society has a different attitude to the experience in the OP compared to “being forced to look at the color orange as a child.”)
If I had to describe exactly why, I think it’s about powerlessness in being forced to a secluded room and touched against your will by a person who could beat you up or otherwise take revenge, and the combination with “this sort of thing may elicit shame in shame-prone people.” (We might be shame-prone around sexuality for biological reasons or for the sort of reasons why people are more likely to evolve fear of snakes than other phobias – it may not be entirely “hardcoded,” but there could still be “structural reasons” related to emotions around sex and the types of dynamics around it that typically emerge in societies.) Then, with trauma risk from “bad agent” often being worse than trauma risk from (just) “bad environment,” it seems natural that some people at least will find it scary to process an experience where they firsthand learn that there are others who lack concern for people and will do bad things to you if they catch you and think they can get away with it. This is an uncomfortable thought in itself, people like that shouldn’t exist in a just and safe world. (With the example “forced to see the color orange in a society where this is judged to be really bad” – my bet is that people in that society would be a lot less traumatized if they encountered an orange bird in the forest vs. if someone forcibly takes them inside a secluded room and puts a sheet of orange wallpaper in front of them!) Lastly, issues with disgust and disgust sensitivity probably play a role – being touched by someone who creeps you out or grosses you out can feel horrible for the same reason it doesn’t feel good if someone spits in your face – has very little to do with societal conventions because most cultures don’t condone spitting into someone’s face. Touch/contact, especially involving bodily fluids, is inherently more disgust-evoking than other potential disgust triggers.)
To conclude, I find myself roughly equally alienated by “all forms of sexually inappropriate touch are inherently trauma-causing” and “inappropriate sexual touch is primarily traumatic because of societal expectations.” Both lack important nuance. I might agree that sexually inappropriate touch is less likely to traumatize people than societal discourse would suggest (depending on what sort of discourse we have in mind), which means that the discourse might be doing some harm here while also having the benefit of making these experiences less likely to happen – so it seems complicated.
(Unrelated to the rest of my comment, but relevant to the topic: this video about an account of being molested by a priest.)
I agree with your point and you give a very convincing example. Still, I object quite strongly to the phrasing “[...] that things like this are almost entirely made traumatic by society’s socially constructed ideas about them.”
Why “almost entirely”?
Here some ingredients to my view:
There are vast individual differences in neuroticism and ability to process potentially-traumatic events.
Just like some phobias develop more commonly than others, some experiences are more likely to elicit trauma than others.
On trauma reactions, there might be biological priors that make people more afraid of “bad agents” than “bad environment,” just like there are priors that children are less likely to learn to become scared of outlets/power stations and more likely to learn fear of snakes. (And maybe it’s not a “prior” per se but rather a logical fact that agents are less predictable than the environment and it makes logical sense to be more scared of unpredictable things.)
Society’s take on what’s dangerous/scary/bad isn’t entirely random; instead, there’s often a wisdom it.
Now, looking at the example in the OP with the above background assumptions, I form the following view.
The example has some features that make it more conducive to eliciting trauma than other experiences (i.e., there are good reasons why society has a different attitude to the experience in the OP compared to “being forced to look at the color orange as a child.”)
If I had to describe exactly why, I think it’s about powerlessness in being forced to a secluded room and touched against your will by a person who could beat you up or otherwise take revenge, and the combination with “this sort of thing may elicit shame in shame-prone people.” (We might be shame-prone around sexuality for biological reasons or for the sort of reasons why people are more likely to evolve fear of snakes than other phobias – it may not be entirely “hardcoded,” but there could still be “structural reasons” related to emotions around sex and the types of dynamics around it that typically emerge in societies.) Then, with trauma risk from “bad agent” often being worse than trauma risk from (just) “bad environment,” it seems natural that some people at least will find it scary to process an experience where they firsthand learn that there are others who lack concern for people and will do bad things to you if they catch you and think they can get away with it. This is an uncomfortable thought in itself, people like that shouldn’t exist in a just and safe world. (With the example “forced to see the color orange in a society where this is judged to be really bad” – my bet is that people in that society would be a lot less traumatized if they encountered an orange bird in the forest vs. if someone forcibly takes them inside a secluded room and puts a sheet of orange wallpaper in front of them!) Lastly, issues with disgust and disgust sensitivity probably play a role – being touched by someone who creeps you out or grosses you out can feel horrible for the same reason it doesn’t feel good if someone spits in your face – has very little to do with societal conventions because most cultures don’t condone spitting into someone’s face. Touch/contact, especially involving bodily fluids, is inherently more disgust-evoking than other potential disgust triggers.)
To conclude, I find myself roughly equally alienated by “all forms of sexually inappropriate touch are inherently trauma-causing” and “inappropriate sexual touch is primarily traumatic because of societal expectations.” Both lack important nuance. I might agree that sexually inappropriate touch is less likely to traumatize people than societal discourse would suggest (depending on what sort of discourse we have in mind), which means that the discourse might be doing some harm here while also having the benefit of making these experiences less likely to happen – so it seems complicated.
(Unrelated to the rest of my comment, but relevant to the topic: this video about an account of being molested by a priest.)
You’re right. I shouldn’t have used that wording. It was stupid of me.