When considering the effects of an event, an aggression, we can identify different possible cases.
First of all, we can think about the same consideration of an event as an aggression; as for some cases this estimation would receive a consensus in a society, but not for all (for instance, when discerning between something annoying and something aggressive). In general, the consideration of an event as damaging or negligible aggression would also depend on subjective and social (social-type) conceptions.
Then, we can ask for the possible period of time during which the aggression has psychic effects (temporal or persistent) and the psychic results for the subject.
Given the state of psychic, psychological and psychiatric knowledge, to affirm that aggressions (that are perceived like this by the subject – may he or she be the only one) or some type of aggressions produce always a persistent psychic trauma (for the rest of the life) has not any scientific foundation.
On the contrary, this type of affirmation risks getting worse the possible psychical damages.
A psychologist, a psychiatrist or any therapist that affirms that all aggressions produce cases 3 and 4 (especially 4) should not be allowed for doing therapy. A psychologist or psychiatrist in active supporting these affirmations should be banned, erased, forbidden for doing therapy and expulsed from their profession and associations.
Moreover, a therapist doing these affirmations may create a domination and a violent (by re-victimizing ad-infinitum) relation with his or her patients, which risk to eliminate their autonomy, worse the problems, create dependent subjects, doing brainwashing techniques or impose not validated affirmations. It can constitute a maltreatment relation, as the supposed “therapist” strikes on patient traumas (psychical damage) until the patient accepts any affirmation from the “therapist”.
Given the fact that “therapists” can have their own interest and agenda, these kind of practices and affirmations could derive, and I fear this is the most common case, from economic (get money from the patients or others), political (impose ideological points of view, brainwashing) or experimental (having perpetual human guinea pigs) interests of those “therapists”. Then, instead of “therapist” we should talk about “obscurantists”.
Fools obsessed with sexual aggressions would deserve another note (better talk about fools or stupid people or perverse people than “scientists” or “therapists”).
I have not definitive answer, I do not have the true, but I do believe that, given some conditions, all or almost all aggressions are or temporal or tolerable by subjects: the subject, the human can get beyond the damage and the trauma.
|Aggression||Damage, trauma||Temporal||Psychic destruction||1|
|Aggression||Damage, trauma||Temporal||Psychic recovery||2|
|Aggression||Damage, trauma||Persistent||Psychic destruction||3|
|Aggression||Damage, trauma||Persistent||Psychic tolerance||4|