Struggling with the details
Louise
stories of people who were starting a first poly relationship or first
outside relationship, and some of the discomforts and
misunderstandings surrounding that.
I also remember lots of people here in long-term primary relationships
who have talked about what kinds of arrangements, agreements, and
compromises they have with their primary partners how they will manage
the details of dating other people. I wish I could remember more of
your stories about what works for you, because I've got a feeling that
it will be tricky to Google for.
But what I'm mostly now wondering about, because I'm finding myself in
a situation where one of my partners has a new sweetie, is how you all
got to those arrangements about the details. Was it difficult? Was
it possible to anticipate ahead of time what you'd feel comfortable
with and what you wouldn't? How did you stay connected with your
primary partner while things were changing? Would you do anything
differently if you were starting over again?
Louise
Stef
Doc <DrLL...@comcast.net> wrote:
>Well, that probably enough for a de-lurking post.
Welcome (or welcome back)! Great post.
--
Stef ** avid/sensible/sensual/wise/essential/elemental/tangle
** st...@cat-and-dragon.com <*> http://www.cat-and-dragon.com/stef
**
I see many over-bold with God Almighty, making too many subtle scannings
of His blessed will, as lawyers do with human testaments. -- Elizabeth I
Laura Elizabeth Back
>I haven't been following this group closely for a while (other things
>going on) so I don't know the current regular posters -- so, this
>answer is just from me...
[...]
Wow; lots of interesting stuff to chew on in there... Welcome!
I don't assume I'll be comfortable with much: I know what I *want* to be
comfortable with, but I also know that my emotions can be extremely
uncooperative. In the past I've sometimes had trouble expressing this
clearly: my efforts at full disclosure about my likely reactions have come
across as "I don't want you to do that" where in fact I figured my
negative reactions would just be something to work through, and I was
entirely willing to deal with them.
--
Laura E. Back
Carla
> I don't assume I'll be comfortable with much: I know what I *want* to be
> comfortable with, but I also know that my emotions can be extremely
> uncooperative. In the past I've sometimes had trouble expressing this
> clearly: my efforts at full disclosure about my likely reactions have come
> across as "I don't want you to do that" where in fact I figured my
> negative reactions would just be something to work through, and I was
> entirely willing to deal with them.
Heh, do folks still "seeble" here?
Cheers,
Carla
Laura Elizabeth Back
[...]
>Sometimes I find that too much communication, too
>soon, hinders the process of resolving the issue. If I say something
>is okay and then I have a strong negative reaction I find that if I we
>try to "talk it out" while I am still under the influence of the
>"non-rational, non-logical" emotional response then my tendency is to
>JUSTIFY that response.
I have been struggling with this one a lot lately. When something is
distressing me, my instinct is to try to validate that, and I do that by
looking for something to blame it on.[0] It's often a lot easier for me
to understand my feelings, and figure out what to do about them, once I've
gotten some distance from them. What's hard for me is figuring out how to
get the distance--if I ignore my distress instead of addressing it, it's
likely to just fester.
[0] As far as I can tell, this is probably based on a couple beliefs:
first, that it's not okay for me to be distressed unless I have a good
excuse; and second, that if I want my partner's help in soothing the
distress, I need to convince him it's his fault. Ew.
--
Laura E. Back
umarc
>And the culture that we live in
>reinforces that - couples screaming on Jerry Springer, serial monogamy
>leading to serial divorces, articles in magazines bemoaning this and
>that and the other thing about marriage and sex.
My life is a lot more pleasant since I learned to tune out media noise.
>First of all, I think that honesty and communication are essential.
>Again, not unique to poly relationships! However, while I may not be
>in complete control of my EMOTIONAL response, I AM responsible for my
>words and actions. Sometimes I find that too much communication, too
>soon, hinders the process of resolving the issue.
Sometimes a little distraction from things that trouble one is a good
thing, I find.
>If I say something
>is okay and then I have a strong negative reaction I find that if I we
>try to "talk it out" while I am still under the influence of the
>"non-rational, non-logical" emotional response then my tendency is to
>JUSTIFY that response.
I sometimes wonder if relationship issues would be any easier if
people assumed themselves and their partners to be irrational.
>My feelings however, don't need justification
Not only don't they need justification, but I don't think feelings
can be justified. How do you justify "I want a cookie!" or "I'm
afraid!"?
>It takes some trial and error to find out where your boumdaries are. I
>thought I had none...I found out I fell somewhat short of my ideal.
>But boundaries can move...with trust. But trust takes time, and
>honesty.
Yup.
umar
Carla
> It's often a lot easier for me
> to understand my feelings, and figure out what to do about them, once I've
> gotten some distance from them. What's hard for me is figuring out how to
> get the distance--if I ignore my distress instead of addressing it, it's
> likely to just fester.
Yep, I know that one. It's hard for me to *not* talk about the distress
while I'm feeling it.
> [0] As far as I can tell, this is probably based on a couple beliefs:
> first, that it's not okay for me to be distressed unless I have a good
> excuse; and second, that if I want my partner's help in soothing the
> distress, I need to convince him it's his fault. Ew.
For me, I want to be understood. And if a partner's response is "If you
didn't want me to do this, why didn't you just *say* so?" I find the
distress becomes even greater, 'cause I know he's not "getting it".
I often feel like, if I can get a partner to *understand* why I'm having
a negative reaction to something, then we can find a workaround or
compromise.
Cheers,
Carla
Ryk
<leb...@cyclone.stanford.edu> wrote:
>[0] As far as I can tell, this is probably based on a couple beliefs:
>first, that it's not okay for me to be distressed unless I have a good
>excuse;
I find it a lot easier to be comforting if there is no good excuse, or
if the reason is far removed (like an abuser who's dead) than if
there's a valid cause somewhere nearby. Even if the cause is not me,
I'm more likely to try to fix it. If somebody is crying for no reason,
or a reason I can't do anything about, then there's not much left for
me to respond with other than hugs and tea, etc. I don't need to
defend my actions. I don't need fix anything.
> and second, that if I want my partner's help in soothing the
>distress, I need to convince him it's his fault. Ew.
Which can be a real problem if it isn't. Or if he doesn't think it is.
If he is anything like me, it would help if you could say that his
actions were reasonable for somebody acting in good faith based on the
information he had, and they just turned out to set you off -- that it
was an accident. But that might not satisfy your need for it to be his
fault.
Or were you saying that he won't offer comfort unless you convince him
he caused the problem?
Ryk
Ryk
wrote:
>"Doc" <DrLL...@comcast.net> writes:
>>My feelings however, don't need justification
>
>Not only don't they need justification, but I don't think feelings
>can be justified. How do you justify "I want a cookie!" or "I'm
>afraid!"?
No, feelings don't need justification. Not until they turn into
actions. Feeling upset may be unfortunate. Taking it out on your
partner may be unjustified.
Likewise, feelings don't generate justification. Feeling "I want a
cookie" doesn't justify eating the last cookie that was set aside for
somebody else. Nor does it justify bitching at somebody who ate the
last cookie yesterday, after checking with you to make sure it was OK.
Ryk
Laura Elizabeth Back
>On Sat, 15 Oct 2005 04:41:56 +0000 (UTC), Laura Elizabeth Back
><leb...@cyclone.stanford.edu> wrote:
>
>>[0] As far as I can tell, this is probably based on a couple beliefs:
>>first, that it's not okay for me to be distressed unless I have a good
>>excuse;
>
>I find it a lot easier to be comforting if there is no good excuse, or
>if the reason is far removed (like an abuser who's dead) than if
>there's a valid cause somewhere nearby. Even if the cause is not me,
>I'm more likely to try to fix it. If somebody is crying for no reason,
>or a reason I can't do anything about, then there's not much left for
>me to respond with other than hugs and tea, etc. I don't need to
>defend my actions. I don't need fix anything.
Interesting.
>> and second, that if I want my partner's help in soothing the
>>distress, I need to convince him it's his fault. Ew.
>
>Which can be a real problem if it isn't. Or if he doesn't think it is.
No kidding--thus the ew.
>If he is anything like me, it would help if you could say that his
>actions were reasonable for somebody acting in good faith based on the
>information he had, and they just turned out to set you off -- that it
>was an accident. But that might not satisfy your need for it to be his
>fault.
I can't usually say that without further examination, and even then, not
necessarily.
>Or were you saying that he won't offer comfort unless you convince him
>he caused the problem?
I was saying that that is what I tend to expect. Whether it's true or
not, it's hard to tell.
--
Laura E. Back
Mean Green Dancing Machine
Carla <carli...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>For me, I want to be understood. And if a partner's response is "If you
>didn't want me to do this, why didn't you just *say* so?" I find the
>distress becomes even greater, 'cause I know he's not "getting it".
>
>I often feel like, if I can get a partner to *understand* why I'm having
>a negative reaction to something, then we can find a workaround or
>compromise.
Ayup. I think I was on the other side of this for much of my primary
and my Poly Hell [tm]....
--
--- Aahz <*> (Copyright 2005 by aa...@pobox.com)
Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6 http://rule6.info/
Androgynous poly kinky vanilla queer het Pythonista
The best way to get information on Usenet is not to ask a question, but
to post the wrong information.
Ryk
>For me, I want to be understood. And if a partner's response is "If you
>didn't want me to do this, why didn't you just *say* so?" I find the
>distress becomes even greater, 'cause I know he's not "getting it".
I fit into the not "getting it" category. If my partner is distressed
over my doing something that she had previously told me would be OK,
then "why didn't you say so?" is far from a rhetorical question. It
seems to me that the answer must be pretty close to the root of the
current problem, and to avoiding similar problems in the future.
>I often feel like, if I can get a partner to *understand* why I'm having
>a negative reaction to something, then we can find a workaround or
>compromise.
I'm not sure how much it is possible to understand feelings. You can
map out the rational parts, pair up some causes and effects, process
the events until you're sick of it, but for a lot of feelings, I don't
think you can get to much more than a roadmap of where the landmines
are. Of course, such a map can be quite effective in finding a
workaround or a compromise. I have a bunch of such maps, but I would
be lying if I pretended to *understand* them.
(Of course, there are lots of situations where I do feel like I
*understand* because I could see myself reacting similarly in the
other person's situation. Those ones are seldom sources of conflict if
I'm acting in good faith.)
Ryk
Stef
>For me, I want to be understood. And if a partner's response is "If you
>didn't want me to do this, why didn't you just *say* so?" I find the
>distress becomes even greater, 'cause I know he's not "getting it".
"Why didn't you" responses generally cause me irritation or distress. If
the partner said, "I didn't know you didn't want me to do X," the aspect
where I feel blamed for my own reaction is at least removed from the
distressors. I might still be distressed because of how MUCH I didn't
want my partner to do X, or because I thought my partner SHOULD have
known I didn't want zir to do X.
I try not to expect mind-reading, but I do want and expect my partners
to generate, over time, basic models of my larger likes and dislikes.
Sometimes the line between mind-reading and a basic model isn't where I
think it's gonna be, though.
>I often feel like, if I can get a partner to *understand* why I'm having
>a negative reaction to something, then we can find a workaround or
>compromise.
Yes yes yes.
--
Stef ** avid/sensible/sensual/wise/essential/elemental/tangle
** st...@cat-and-dragon.com <*> http://www.cat-and-dragon.com/stef
**
Better Living Through Scheduling<tm> -- SFJ
Stef
Ryk <r...@wellingtonhouse.org> wrote:
>On Sat, 15 Oct 2005 15:11:50 GMT, Carla <carli...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>For me, I want to be understood. And if a partner's response is "If you
>>didn't want me to do this, why didn't you just *say* so?" I find the
>>distress becomes even greater, 'cause I know he's not "getting it".
>
>I fit into the not "getting it" category. If my partner is distressed
>over my doing something that she had previously told me would be OK,
>then "why didn't you say so?" is far from a rhetorical question. It
>seems to me that the answer must be pretty close to the root of the
>current problem, and to avoiding similar problems in the future.
IME, "why I didn't say so" usually has to do with how I react to having
strong emotions, which may have to do with how I was raised or it may
just be something about my personality.
If I get distressed and I don't say so, it's because I fear the other
person's reaction if I do say so, and/or I am in public and I hate
talking about my feelings in public, and/or I need to get to a point
where it's possible for me to generate a verbal explanation of my
distress and its reasons - some of my distress states don't come with
cogent non-abusive language attached so this can take time, and/or I
need to get to a point where I can articulate a request for action that
would help me deal with or prevent my distress.
None of those things necessarily have anything directly to do with the
specific thing I was distressed about.
>>I often feel like, if I can get a partner to *understand* why I'm having
>>a negative reaction to something, then we can find a workaround or
>>compromise.
>I'm not sure how much it is possible to understand feelings.
It's not, necessarily. But as you said in your post, talking about them
can help you generate a map of the territory. It can also help you
generalize a bit about the landmines, so even if you haven't seen that
exact model before, you have a chance of being able to recognize, "Hm,
that looks a lot like this other model of landmine I've seen, I'd better
tread carefully."
--
Stef ** avid/sensible/sensual/wise/essential/elemental/tangle
** st...@cat-and-dragon.com <*> http://www.cat-and-dragon.com/stef
**
Dirty dirty dirty filthy disgusting little dishes, I curse *all* of you.
-- Shannon Wheeler, Too Much Coffee Man
Stef
Ryk <r...@wellingtonhouse.org> wrote:
>I find it a lot easier to be comforting if there is no good excuse, or
>if the reason is far removed (like an abuser who's dead) than if
>there's a valid cause somewhere nearby. Even if the cause is not me,
>I'm more likely to try to fix it.
How come comforting doesn't fall into the category of a fix?
I got a lot better at controlling my tendency to offer GAS in place of
sympathy when I realized that sympathy was the perfect tool for solving
some problems, even problems that have a nearby source.
--
Stef ** avid/sensible/sensual/wise/essential/elemental/tangle
** st...@cat-and-dragon.com <*> http://www.cat-and-dragon.com/stef
**
Entropy isn't what it used to be.
serene
> On Sat, 15 Oct 2005 04:41:56 +0000 (UTC), Laura Elizabeth Back
> <leb...@cyclone.stanford.edu> wrote:
<snip>
>>and second, that if I want my partner's help in soothing the
>>distress, I need to convince him it's his fault. Ew.
>
>
> Which can be a real problem if it isn't. Or if he doesn't think it is.
> If he is anything like me, it would help if you could say that his
> actions were reasonable for somebody acting in good faith based on the
> information he had, and they just turned out to set you off -- that it
> was an accident. But that might not satisfy your need for it to be his
> fault.
When I was struggling with severe jealousy over a fling one of my
partners had with one of my friends, part of what I felt my
responsibility was in the situation was to keep reminding them (and
myself) that they were not doing anything wrong. Sure, I was hurting
over some things they were doing, but they had not violated any
agreements or been intentionally hurtful, so it wasn't gonna be useful
for me to be mad at them or blame them. (I was mad anyway, sometimes,
but it would have felt unfair of me to spew anger at them for doing
things I had said I thought would be perfectly fine.)
What did help was trying to get at which things were hardest for me, and
see if they were willing to keep those things fairly well contained,
even though I had thought those things would be fine with me. They were
completely willing to modify their behavior in order to make my life a
little easier. They both love me, so it was tearing them both up to see
me crying all the time.
serene
Louise
>In article <W_84f.917$oi4...@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com>,
>Carla <carli...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>For me, I want to be understood. And if a partner's response is "If you
>>didn't want me to do this, why didn't you just *say* so?" I find the
>>distress becomes even greater, 'cause I know he's not "getting it".
>
>"Why didn't you" responses generally cause me irritation or distress.
I'm the same way. Especially when I'm feeling fragile or defensive
anyway, I tend to assume that the person asking those questions is
more interested in making me see that I'm in the wrong than in finding
out more about me and what happened for me and in helping me identify
ways to avoid the unpleasantness next time.
Now I see that by getting defensive about those questions I might
actually have wasted some good opportunities to talk to my partner
about my feelings and get more insight myself. Sigh.
>If
>the partner said, "I didn't know you didn't want me to do X," the aspect
>where I feel blamed for my own reaction is at least removed from the
>distressors. I might still be distressed because of how MUCH I didn't
>want my partner to do X, or because I thought my partner SHOULD have
>known I didn't want zir to do X.
Yes, I find that phrasing much easier to think about and imagine
myself responding to productively.
That phrasing might make it easier for me to say "Well, no, of course
you didn't, because I told you I would be fine with X. I'm really
sorry for dumping all over you after X happened." and then go on to
start figuring out why the mismatch.
Louise
Louise
<leb...@cyclone.stanford.edu> wrote:
Whereas, I'm getting the feeling that my partner might actually be a
lot *more* likely to relieve my distress (whether by comforting me or
by sorting out some fixes or both) when I'm willing to make it clear
that the situation is not zir fault. Cool.
Louise
Louise
wrote:
>On Sat, 15 Oct 2005 04:41:56 +0000 (UTC), Laura Elizabeth Back
><leb...@cyclone.stanford.edu> wrote:
>
>>[0] As far as I can tell, this is probably based on a couple beliefs:
>>first, that it's not okay for me to be distressed unless I have a good
>>excuse;
>
>I find it a lot easier to be comforting if there is no good excuse, or
>if the reason is far removed (like an abuser who's dead) than if
>there's a valid cause somewhere nearby. Even if the cause is not me,
>I'm more likely to try to fix it. If somebody is crying for no reason,
>or a reason I can't do anything about, then there's not much left for
>me to respond with other than hugs and tea, etc.
Hugs and tea go a long way :-)
>I don't need to
>defend my actions. I don't need fix anything.
>
>> and second, that if I want my partner's help in soothing the
>>distress, I need to convince him it's his fault. Ew.
>
>Which can be a real problem if it isn't. Or if he doesn't think it is.
>If he is anything like me, it would help if you could say that his
>actions were reasonable for somebody acting in good faith based on the
>information he had, and they just turned out to set you off -- that it
>was an accident.
Lots of the problems we have gotten into are like this. Maybe I
should say things like that more often.
>But that might not satisfy your need for it to be his
>fault.
>
>Or were you saying that he won't offer comfort unless you convince him
>he caused the problem?
The logical answer to that second one must be to explain to him that
you're not accusing him of doing something wrong and that you still
would like his help.
But it seems to me that there might be some third possibility, where I
could take responsibility for the unpredictability of my feelings and
my failure to think clearly about what would bother me and to tell you
in a timely way, but I could still want to, as Stef says, give you
some hints to build a better map of the landmines for next time.
There are probably ways to do that which don't come out as criticizing
you; I can see that my usual ways do come out like that though.
Can I just say that I love this thread?
Louise
Louise
Mean Green Dancing Machine
Louise <lou...@wellingtonhouse.org> wrote:
>
>But it seems to me that there might be some third possibility, where I
>could take responsibility for the unpredictability of my feelings and
>my failure to think clearly about what would bother me and to tell you
>in a timely way, but I could still want to, as Stef says, give you
>some hints to build a better map of the landmines for next time.
>There are probably ways to do that which don't come out as criticizing
>you; I can see that my usual ways do come out like that though.
I'd also guess that part of the problem comes from "fighting for the
middle". I think the "container" exercise/ritual from Harville Hendrix
goes a long way toward helping here...
Another point: you might consider that your not telling your partner
about what would bother you ahead of time is not a "failure", just as
it's not your partner's failure to read your mind. As the saying goes,
shit happens.
>Can I just say that I love this thread?
Great!
Pat Kight
*seeble*
Although my own problematic beliefs are slightly different, I struggle with
the basic issue, too. It's helped by having a partner who's more than
willing to provide the soothing, but I still get all weird and angsty when
I want to ask for it.
I'm trying to learn to give myself a few days to settle down before
verbalizing the distress, because that usually lowers the angst level. But
sometimes, yeah, it does fester instead. One of these days I hope to figure
out what makes the difference.
--
Pat Kight
kig...@peak.org
Pat Kight
> In article <1d82l1l2uphjtgmv3...@4ax.com>,
> Ryk <r...@wellingtonhouse.org> wrote:
>
>
>>I find it a lot easier to be comforting if there is no good excuse, or
>>if the reason is far removed (like an abuser who's dead) than if
>>there's a valid cause somewhere nearby. Even if the cause is not me,
>>I'm more likely to try to fix it.
> How come comforting doesn't fall into the category of a fix?
That's a really good question. I'm another with GAS tendencies, and I think
it's partly because I don't feel particularly *good* at "just" comforting
someone. When my sweetie's had a crappy week, I can never think of much to
say, comfort-wise, that doesn't amount to ineffectual "there, there"
noises. Or at least it feels ineffectual to *me*. So I tend to pipe up with
suggestions for fixing things, even when I know it's not my place and/or
the situation isn't amenable to fixes.
It's an annoying tendency (to me, if to no one else). But I'm not sure I
have good comforting skills - at least not long-distance, which is where
this tends to crop up. In person, the ability to apply comforting touch
seems to work pretty well, with a side benefit of shutting me up.
>
> I got a lot better at controlling my tendency to offer GAS in place of
> sympathy when I realized that sympathy was the perfect tool for solving
> some problems, even problems that have a nearby source.
Mind if I ask for some examples? I think I could use sympathy-giving lessons...
--
Pat Kight
kig...@peak.org
Pat Kight
> Can I just say that I love this thread?
So do I, although I've been too busy to really take part in it as it
progressed. It's providing me with all sorts of food for thought. I'd
really love to continue the discussion at alt.polycon, if people there
aren't sick of it by then.
--
Pat Kight
kig...@peak.org
Laura Elizabeth Back
>Can I just say that I love this thread?
I've been loving your contributions to it. Thank you!
--
Laura E. Back
Laura Elizabeth Back
Yes *please*.
--
Laura E. Back
Laura Elizabeth Back
I wonder if where I really have problems is not where he doesn't think
it's his fault, but where he doesn't think it's his fault *and* he thinks
*I* think it's his fault. With the partner with whom I most often run
into these problems, one of our issues is that as soon as I tell him I'm
upset, he gets so caught up in asserting his lack of blameworthiness that
he fails to be comforting. Maybe the key is avoiding making him think I
blame him...
--
Laura E. Back
Mean Green Dancing Machine
Or him assuming you're not blaming him until you explicitly blame him?
From my POV, if one partner is upset and the other partner isn't (at the
start of the interaction), there is a slight onus on the part of the
non-upset partner to "take advantage" of their greater sanity to keep the
situation from spiraling. Note the emphasis on "slight".
Laura Elizabeth Back
>Laura Elizabeth Back <leb...@cyclone.stanford.edu> wrote:
>>
>>I wonder if where I really have problems is not where he doesn't think
>>it's his fault, but where he doesn't think it's his fault *and* he thinks
>>*I* think it's his fault. With the partner with whom I most often run
>>into these problems, one of our issues is that as soon as I tell him I'm
>>upset, he gets so caught up in asserting his lack of blameworthiness that
>>he fails to be comforting. Maybe the key is avoiding making him think I
>>blame him...
>
>Or him assuming you're not blaming him until you explicitly blame him?
>From my POV, if one partner is upset and the other partner isn't (at the
>start of the interaction), there is a slight onus on the part of the
>non-upset partner to "take advantage" of their greater sanity to keep the
>situation from spiraling. Note the emphasis on "slight".
That makes sense. Problem is, it's likely to be difficult for him to
assume I'm not blaming him, because (a) my ingrained ways of expressing
distress can tend to suggest blame rather strongly, and (b) often, as an
instinctive and entirely irrational reaction, I *do* blame. I'm working
on separating out the irrational blame reactions and not making an issue
of them, and also on changing the way I express myself, which should make
it easier for him to do as you suggest, but I can understand why that
doesn't always work as things stand.
Also, I think he gets so stressed by my being upset (or by my being
potentially upset, around topics he knows to be sticky) that he's not
necessarily working with any more resources than I am, sanity-wise.
--
Laura E. Back
Ryk
>In article <8oa2l11tcuv7j18hg...@4ax.com>,
>Ryk <r...@wellingtonhouse.org> wrote:
>>I fit into the not "getting it" category. If my partner is distressed
>>over my doing something that she had previously told me would be OK,
>>then "why didn't you say so?" is far from a rhetorical question. It
>>seems to me that the answer must be pretty close to the root of the
>>current problem, and to avoiding similar problems in the future.
>
>IME, "why I didn't say so" usually has to do with how I react to having
>strong emotions, which may have to do with how I was raised or it may
>just be something about my personality.
I'm not sure if we're talking about the same thing. I'm talking about
(not in public, with time for reflection, in a safe space, etc.)
telling somebody that X would be OK, then getting upset with them when
X happens. It sounds like you are talking about difficulty
communicating while distressed, which I think is quite common.
Ryk
Ryk
<E-0C0013...@cleopatra.co.uk> wrote:
>I hate it when the answer is (shorn of any decoration): "You were supposed
>to *know* I didn't mean it."
>
>If I'm told, "No problem, you have a night out with the boys" or "Of course
>I don't mind if you X", I *will* take it at face value, because I can't
>stand mind-games. Even (or even especially) if I suspect it's not sincere.
I usually make an effort to check back and find out if somebody really
means what they say if I even suspect it's not sincere, or if what
they said surprises me.
>It's taken some partners a *long* time to "get" this.
How long? Did it solve the problem of having a partner be upset after
telling you something would be OK?
Ryk
Ryk
Ryk
Stef
I see. Well, if I tell someone X is OK, and then I get upset about X,
the "why I didn't say so" often has a large component of "I must deal
with this upset on my own, without involving them, because I TOLD them
that X was OK." This might also be called "feeling ashamed of having
misled them and frustrated at my own failure to predict my feelings."
If I actually CAN deal with X on my own, then things work out OK, but if
it turns out I can't, then by the time I say something, I have already
worked myself up into a big upset, not only over X but over my failure
to deal with X and the likelihood that the person I told "X is OK" is
going to have negative feelings when I tell them that X wasn't OK after
all.
--
Stef ** avid/sensible/sensual/wise/essential/elemental/tangle
** st...@cat-and-dragon.com <*> http://www.cat-and-dragon.com/stef
**
When I face the
mountain of knives,
the mountain of knives
of itself breaks up.
-- "This prayer metaphorically describes what happens when you recite
Kuan Yin's name and the Great Compassion Mantra, her personal mantra."
Loni Lorraine Baur, http://www.sojourn.org/spring98/html/kuanyin.html
via Elynne
Ryk
>In article <1d82l1l2uphjtgmv3...@4ax.com>,
>Ryk <r...@wellingtonhouse.org> wrote:
>
>>I find it a lot easier to be comforting if there is no good excuse, or
>>if the reason is far removed (like an abuser who's dead) than if
>>there's a valid cause somewhere nearby. Even if the cause is not me,
>>I'm more likely to try to fix it.
>
>How come comforting doesn't fall into the category of a fix?
Terminology? Because it doesn't fix things for me?
>I got a lot better at controlling my tendency to offer GAS in place of
>sympathy when I realized that sympathy was the perfect tool for solving
>some problems, even problems that have a nearby source.
While sympathy is better than nothing when I'm upset, fixing the
problem goes a lot farther towards making me feel better.
Ryk
Brooks Moses
> Laura Elizabeth Back wrote:
>>[0] As far as I can tell, this is probably based on a couple beliefs:
>>first, that it's not okay for me to be distressed unless I have a good
>>excuse; and second, that if I want my partner's help in soothing the
>
> For me, I want to be understood. And if a partner's response is "If you
> didn't want me to do this, why didn't you just *say* so?" I find the
> distress becomes even greater, 'cause I know he's not "getting it".
For me, one of the reasons a "Why didn't you just _say_ so?" is a
difficult question to deal with is that I hear it as a rhetorical
question that's merely a decorated version of "You should have told me,"
or worse, "You were wrong to have not told me."
It has, on occasion, helped me to remember that I usually have a
perfectly real answer to that: "I honestly thought that I wasn't going
to be distressed by it, and then when I was, it was too late for me to
tell you without being additionally distressed about surprising you with
my distress at a very inopportune time" -- or things roughly like that.
Though I suppose that getting to that point of communication involves
first correcting the "If you didn't want me to do this" part of the
question.
- Brooks
--
The "bmoses-nospam" address is valid; no unmunging needed.
Ryk
wrote:
> (I was mad anyway, sometimes,
>but it would have felt unfair of me to spew anger at them for doing
>things I had said I thought would be perfectly fine.)
>
>What did help was trying to get at which things were hardest for me, and
>see if they were willing to keep those things fairly well contained,
>even though I had thought those things would be fine with me. They were
>completely willing to modify their behavior in order to make my life a
>little easier. They both love me, so it was tearing them both up to see
>me crying all the time.
Were they also pissed off at you for putting them in such a difficult
position by having said you thought it would be perfectly fine?
Ryk
Ryk
OK, let's do a panel, or a case study, or something...
Ryk
Louise
wrote:
No, of course you didn't, because I told you more than once that X
would be a good idea and I would be fine with it. I'm really sorry
for dumping all over you after X started.
Louise,
sending you the value of X in e-mail in case it is not already clear
Stef
Pat Kight <kig...@peak.org> wrote:
>Stef wrote:
>> I got a lot better at controlling my tendency to offer GAS in place of
>> sympathy when I realized that sympathy was the perfect tool for solving
>> some problems, even problems that have a nearby source.
>Mind if I ask for some examples? I think I could use sympathy-giving
>lessons...
I think you should ask your sweetie what would make him feel comforted.
But here's what I do if I don't have that sort of information to go on,
I start with general comments like "that sucks" and go on to reflecting
feelings, e.g., "That sounds really frustrating" or "If that happened to
me, I'd feel..."
If I start feeling like offering advice, then I try to remember to ask
first; I might say something like, "I have some ideas about this, but I
don't know if you want advice or if you'd rather just have a sympathetic
ear." (Rephrase to your level of directness. ;-))
Once I began to do this I found the feedback was good, and some sorts of
conversations that used to feel really frustrating and worrying to me
started feeling a lot better. That keeps me on track. Sometimes I still
fall into GAS, though.
--
Stef ** avid/sensible/sensual/wise/essential/elemental/tangle
** st...@cat-and-dragon.com <*> http://www.cat-and-dragon.com/stef
**
Enjoy your life. If you don't, no one else will.
Stef
Ryk <r...@wellingtonhouse.org> wrote:
>On Sat, 15 Oct 2005 17:20:48 +0000 (UTC), st...@panix.com (Stef) wrote:
>
>>In article <1d82l1l2uphjtgmv3...@4ax.com>,
>>Ryk <r...@wellingtonhouse.org> wrote:
>>
>>>I find it a lot easier to be comforting if there is no good excuse, or
>>>if the reason is far removed (like an abuser who's dead) than if
>>>there's a valid cause somewhere nearby. Even if the cause is not me,
>>>I'm more likely to try to fix it.
>>
>>How come comforting doesn't fall into the category of a fix?
>
>Terminology? Because it doesn't fix things for me?
The latter makes sense.
>>I got a lot better at controlling my tendency to offer GAS in place of
>>sympathy when I realized that sympathy was the perfect tool for solving
>>some problems, even problems that have a nearby source.
>
>While sympathy is better than nothing when I'm upset, fixing the
>problem goes a lot farther towards making me feel better.
Assuming I'm complaining to someone about what I'm upset about, that's
true for me only if both of these are true:
(a) the person I'm complaining to CAN fix the problem (I sometimes feel
upset about things that can't be fixed, or can't be fixed by one person,
or can't be fixed by the person I'm complaining to)
(b) if I want someone else to fix the problem, or tell me how to fix it,
rather than wanting to figure out myself how to fix it
If one or both of those is not true, then I just want sympathy and/or
agreement. I've gotten articulate enough about these distinctions that
when I realize a conversation is going in a direction i don't want, I
can say "I'd rather not have suggestions about this, I just want to
rant" or "I know this is not something you can fix" or "I don't think
this is really your fault" and then say what I do want the person to do
(offer sympathy, be a sounding board, show me they are hearing what I am
saying, etc.)
--
Stef ** avid/sensible/sensual/wise/essential/elemental/tangle
** st...@cat-and-dragon.com <*> http://www.cat-and-dragon.com/stef
**
Q: Why don't sheep shrink when it rains?
A: Cold water wash. -- Piglet
Stef
Louise <lou...@wellingtonhouse.org> wrote:
>On Sun, 16 Oct 2005 00:19:08 -0400, Ryk <r...@wellingtonhouse.org>
>wrote:
>
>No, of course you didn't, because I told you more than once that X
>would be a good idea and I would be fine with it. I'm really sorry
>for dumping all over you after X started.
>
>
>Louise,
>sending you the value of X in e-mail in case it is not already clear
Awwww.
This is a great thread.
--
Stef ** avid/sensible/sensual/wise/essential/elemental/tangle
** st...@cat-and-dragon.com <*> http://www.cat-and-dragon.com/stef
**
if you are going to actually change yourself, then you must choose
wisely what you plan to change. For the most part, you are who you are
and that's that. The microscopic fraction of what you want to change had
better be what you really want to change -- more than anything else,
because changing it will require an enormous effort. -- Peter McWilliams
Pat Kight
then cancelled, but you know how that goes... snipping more this time, too,
to get to the part I'm responding to.)
Stef wrote:
> I see. Well, if I tell someone X is OK, and then I get upset about X,
> the "why I didn't say so" often has a large component of "I must deal
> with this upset on my own, without involving them, because I TOLD them
> that X was OK." This might also be called "feeling ashamed of having
> misled them and frustrated at my own failure to predict my feelings."
>
> If I actually CAN deal with X on my own, then things work out OK, but if
> it turns out I can't, then by the time I say something, I have already
> worked myself up into a big upset, not only over X but over my failure
> to deal with X and the likelihood that the person I told "X is OK" is
> going to have negative feelings when I tell them that X wasn't OK after
> all.
I've been known to say, "I know I told you I was fine with X, but it turns
out I'm not fine with it. That's my problem, not yours, but I need you to
know about it because I'm upset and I want you to know why. If you want to
help me work through the upset, I'll appreciate it, but I'm working on it
myself."
What I don't do, as a rule, is add "... and I want you to stop doing X
right now." Although sometimes I wish I could.
--
Pat Kight
kig...@peak.org
Pat Kight
> In article <Jt6dnaFhMur...@scnresearch.com>,
> Pat Kight <kig...@peak.org> wrote:
>
>>Stef wrote:
>>
>>>I got a lot better at controlling my tendency to offer GAS in place of
>>>sympathy when I realized that sympathy was the perfect tool for solving
>>>some problems, even problems that have a nearby source.
>
>
>>Mind if I ask for some examples? I think I could use sympathy-giving
>>lessons...
> I think you should ask your sweetie what would make him feel comforted.
*smile* As it happens, I just did something very like that while talking to
my sweetie on the phone. Not sure I got an answer, but I did clarify that
when I'm being a GAS-bag, I know that's exactly what I'm doing, and that I
hope he'll take it as an indication of sympathy, not a sign that I'm trying
to solve his life for him.
> But here's what I do if I don't have that sort of information to go on,
> I start with general comments like "that sucks" and go on to reflecting
> feelings, e.g., "That sounds really frustrating" or "If that happened to
> me, I'd feel..."
> If I start feeling like offering advice, then I try to remember to ask
> first; I might say something like, "I have some ideas about this, but I
> don't know if you want advice or if you'd rather just have a sympathetic
> ear." (Rephrase to your level of directness. ;-))
Oh, good idea. Why didn't I think of it?
>
> Once I began to do this I found the feedback was good, and some sorts of
> conversations that used to feel really frustrating and worrying to me
> started feeling a lot better. That keeps me on track. Sometimes I still
> fall into GAS, though.
I could help you fix that ... (-;
--
Pat Kight
kig...@peak.org
serene
> In article <Jt6dnaFhMur...@scnresearch.com>,
> Pat Kight <kig...@peak.org> wrote:
>
>>Stef wrote:
>>
>>>I got a lot better at controlling my tendency to offer GAS in place of
>>>sympathy when I realized that sympathy was the perfect tool for solving
>>>some problems, even problems that have a nearby source.
>
>
>>Mind if I ask for some examples? I think I could use sympathy-giving
>>lessons...
>
>
> I think you should ask your sweetie what would make him feel comforted.
>
> But here's what I do if I don't have that sort of information to go on,
> I start with general comments like "that sucks" and go on to reflecting
> feelings, e.g., "That sounds really frustrating" or "If that happened to
> me, I'd feel..."
For what it's worth (I suspect I may be vastly in the minority here),
those sorts of noises are only comforting to me because I know the
person is trying to be comforting, and I figure that's a nice thing for
them to want to do so they must care about me. What my feelings are
when I hear them, though, are something like a feeling of being
patronized, but not exactly. My feelings think the person is grabbing
standard therapist talk from zir bag and using it on me impersonally,
because the language feels impersonal. Then again, I'm also not fond of
having people tell me what they would do to fix my situation, so I guess
people can't win (*waves to Aahz*) with me.
serene
serene
My partner wasn't (zie says zie was never angry, only confused, and I
believe zir), I think because at every juncture, I did what I've always
done (and what zie expects of me), which is to be open about my feelings
and to be supportive of zir doing what zie wants/needs to do in regards
to zir other relationships, even if it's outside my comfort zone. Too,
this was a fling, not a love relationship, and my partner and I are life
partners, so zie was more concerned about finding my comfort zone than
with having more sex with someone if it was freaking me out. I am *not*
proud of how I reacted, but I did my best to be honorable and kind
during it, and while it took a toll, I think we came out okay.
If we had a different kind of relationship, I might have kept my
jealousy mostly to myself in order to spare my partner's feelings, but
that's not what zie says zie wants, and zie has told me over and over
that I did nothing to damage us or make zir angry. The amount of relief
I felt/feel about that cannot be overstated.
I *do* have a different kind of relationship with the friend, however,
so I kept a lot of stuff to myself with zir, and left the negotiation of
things about zir []ship with my partner to be between them where
possible. My friend still got upset with me a few times (I wouldn't say
angry, but it may have been anger) for changing the "rules of the game,"
as it were, but we both behaved well and are still friends.
They're not still seeing each other. I have asked my partner in several
ways if that is my doing/fault. Zie says zie doesn't think so -- zie
just lost interest for a few reasons, and zie prefers to spend zir time
with zir partners (the friend was never more than a friend-with-benefits
for zir).
serene
Stef
Pat Kight <kig...@peak.org> wrote:
>(sorry if this shows up twice to some people; I hit "send" prematurely and
>then cancelled, but you know how that goes... snipping more this time, too,
>to get to the part I'm responding to.)
>
>Stef wrote:
>
>> I see. Well, if I tell someone X is OK, and then I get upset about X,
>> the "why I didn't say so" often has a large component of "I must deal
>> with this upset on my own, without involving them, because I TOLD them
>> that X was OK." This might also be called "feeling ashamed of having
>> misled them and frustrated at my own failure to predict my feelings."
>>
>> If I actually CAN deal with X on my own, then things work out OK, but if
>> it turns out I can't, then by the time I say something, I have already
>> worked myself up into a big upset, not only over X but over my failure
>> to deal with X and the likelihood that the person I told "X is OK" is
>> going to have negative feelings when I tell them that X wasn't OK after
>> all.
>
>I've been known to say, "I know I told you I was fine with X, but it turns
>out I'm not fine with it. That's my problem, not yours, but I need you to
>know about it because I'm upset and I want you to know why. If you want to
>help me work through the upset, I'll appreciate it, but I'm working on it
>myself."
I've been known to say that sort of thing too. But if I don't, and
someone asks "Why didn't you?" that's why. :-)
>What I don't do, as a rule, is add "... and I want you to stop doing X
>right now." Although sometimes I wish I could.
Explicit permission for saying that is built into my poly agreement with
my primary. I was not comfortable with making such requests at first,
but it has worked well in that relationship on the occasions I have made
them. Without explicit agreement that it's OK, I would not say that, but
I might somehow communicate that if the person were to alter the
behavior, it might help me. It depends on how safe I feel in the
relationship.
--
Stef ** avid/sensible/sensual/wise/essential/elemental/tangle
** st...@cat-and-dragon.com <*> http://www.cat-and-dragon.com/stef
**
"They're not your own people...."
"I didn't know that similarity was required for the exercise of
compassion."
-- "Confessions and Lamentations," Babylon 5
Stef
serene <ser...@serenepages.org> wrote:
>Stef wrote:
>>
>> I think you should ask your sweetie what would make him feel comforted.
>>
>> But here's what I do if I don't have that sort of information to go on,
>> I start with general comments like "that sucks" and go on to reflecting
>> feelings, e.g., "That sounds really frustrating" or "If that happened to
>> me, I'd feel..."
>For what it's worth (I suspect I may be vastly in the minority here),
>those sorts of noises are only comforting to me because I know the
>person is trying to be comforting, and I figure that's a nice thing for
>them to want to do so they must care about me. What my feelings are
>when I hear them, though, are something like a feeling of being
>patronized, but not exactly. My feelings think the person is grabbing
>standard therapist talk from zir bag and using it on me impersonally,
>because the language feels impersonal. Then again, I'm also not fond of
>having people tell me what they would do to fix my situation, so I guess
>people can't win (*waves to Aahz*) with me.
Yeah, I don't think the your feelings are all that rare. Since I use
that language when I don't have specific information about what someone
wants when they're upset, it is impersonal in a sense. Sometimes it also
happens to be what someone particularly wants, in which case it's
personal when I use it with them.
--
Stef ** avid/sensible/sensual/wise/essential/elemental/tangle
** st...@cat-and-dragon.com <*> http://www.cat-and-dragon.com/stef
**
My lifestyle is [dogbert] "I'm not unemployed, I'm a consultant."
[/dogbert]
I'm also in training for the lifestyle of little old crazy cat-lady.
-- SJM
Stef
Pat Kight <kig...@peak.org> wrote:
>Stef wrote:
>> I think you should ask your sweetie what would make him feel comforted.
>*smile* As it happens, I just did something very like that while talking to
>my sweetie on the phone. Not sure I got an answer, but I did clarify that
>when I'm being a GAS-bag, I know that's exactly what I'm doing, and that I
>hope he'll take it as an indication of sympathy, not a sign that I'm trying
>to solve his life for him.
Yay for clarifying phone conversations with sweeties!
>> If I start feeling like offering advice, then I try to remember to ask
>> first; I might say something like, "I have some ideas about this, but I
>> don't know if you want advice or if you'd rather just have a sympathetic
>> ear." (Rephrase to your level of directness. ;-))
>
>Oh, good idea. Why didn't I think of it?
My primary and I both have a strong tendency to give advice, so in our
household this generally gets shortened to "I have MAS" (our equivalent
to GAS) or "Do you want MAS?" or even just a facial expression that
means "I'm firmly shutting my mouth against a near-overwhelming desire
to offer advice." The part where we wait for the other person to confirm
that they wanna hear MAS is also often omitted.
--
Stef ** avid/sensible/sensual/wise/essential/elemental/tangle
** st...@cat-and-dragon.com <*> http://www.cat-and-dragon.com/stef
**
YOU KNOW YOU ARE ADDICTED TO COFFEE IF ...
You've built a miniature city out of little plastic stirrers.
Stef
Laura Elizabeth Back <leb...@cyclone.stanford.edu> wrote:
>*With the partner with whom I most often run
>into these problems, one of our issues is that as soon as I tell him I'm
>upset, he gets so caught up in asserting his lack of blameworthiness that
>he fails to be comforting. Maybe the key is avoiding making him think I
>blame him...
I sometimes try to "frame" such conversations by saying "I don't think
it's your fault." That doesn't completely do away with the defensive
reaction, but it sometimes helps.
--
Stef ** avid/sensible/sensual/wise/essential/elemental/tangle
** st...@cat-and-dragon.com <*> http://www.cat-and-dragon.com/stef
**
A priest was walking along the cliffs at Dover when he came upon two
locals pulling another man ashore on the end of a rope.
"That's what I like to see," remarked the priest; "a man helping his
fellow man."
As he was walking away, one local remarked to the other, "He sure
don't know the first thing about shark fishing." -- via rec.humor.funny
ElissaAnn
"Ryk" <r...@wellingtonhouse.org> wrote in message
news:s8l3l116s1clh6qj4...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 15 Oct 2005 17:20:48 +0000 (UTC), st...@panix.com (Stef) wrote:
[snip]
>>I got a lot better at controlling my tendency to offer GAS in place of
>>sympathy when I realized that sympathy was the perfect tool for solving
>>some problems, even problems that have a nearby source.
>
> While sympathy is better than nothing when I'm upset, fixing the
> problem goes a lot farther towards making me feel better.
Does it matter whether you fix it, or whether someone else fixes it?
Sometimes, it's important to me that I be the one who fixes it. I don't
know why; it just is. It very much depends on the problem. If the problem
is something like being hungry and not having time to make dinner, I'm
delighted to have it fixed for me, as long as the fixer sticks to my
dietary needs. If I'm offered a Twinkie, and I refuse it, I'm not
responsible for the resentment of the offerer.
I really hate it when someone starts suggesting all sorts of things without
having enough information about the problem to make useful suggestions.
Then I think I'm not being listened to.
Elissa
--
"Welcome to heaven; here's your harp and tuning key."
"Welcome to hell; here's your harp."
Mean Green Dancing Machine
>> of sympathy when I realized that sympathy was the perfect tool for
>> solving some problems, even problems that have a nearby source.
>
>lessons...
Option: "Could you tell me more about why this is so upsetting?"
Another option: "Is there anything I can do to help or make you feel
better?"
--
--- Aahz <*> (Copyright 2005 by aa...@pobox.com)
Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6 http://rule6.info/
Androgynous poly kinky vanilla queer het Pythonista
The best way to get information on Usenet is not to ask a question, but
to post the wrong information.
Mean Green Dancing Machine
Soaring Phoenix <soaring-pho...@the-looney-bin.org> wrote:
>
>The way I deal with a partner who got upset after telling me that
>something would be OK when it really wasn't was to point out that was
>unacceptable to me to make that my problem. I would help them work
>things out, if asked, but I wasn't going to be the "bad guy" because I
>took them at their word.
From my POV, there's a big difference between making something at least
partly your problem and making you the bad guy.
Stef
ChickPea <E-0C0013...@cleopatra.co.uk> wrote:
>If I'm told, "No problem, you have a night out with the boys" or "Of course
>I don't mind if you X", I *will* take it at face value, because I can't
>stand mind-games. Even (or even especially) if I suspect it's not sincere.
I can understand your having come up with this solution to deal with
someone who uses indirect communication to manipulate you, and it sounds
like it's working for you now, so that's cool.
But I do think that taking something at face value when you suspect it's
not meant to be taken that way is a form of mind game too.
Indirect communication, in which a statement has a real meaning that's
different from its face value meaning, is a form of communication. It's
not automatically a mind game, even though it can be used *in* a mind
game. It works best when all parties understand the connotation grammar
- the same way that humor based on double meanings does.
--
Stef ** avid/sensible/sensual/wise/essential/elemental/tangle
** st...@cat-and-dragon.com <*> http://www.cat-and-dragon.com/stef
**
I prefer to use "etiquette" because I find that all too often, common
courtesy isn't (common, that is, in any of the meanings for "common" --
just like common sense). With "etiquette", at least, there's room for
various kinds of disagreements about what's appropriate without the
self-righteousness that too often accompanies discussion of what's
common. -- AM
Pat Kight
> In article <YoCdnRUg_M-...@scnresearch.com>,
> Pat Kight <kig...@peak.org> wrote:
>>What I don't do, as a rule, is add "... and I want you to stop doing X
>>right now." Although sometimes I wish I could.
>
>
> Explicit permission for saying that is built into my poly agreement with
> my primary. I was not comfortable with making such requests at first,
> but it has worked well in that relationship on the occasions I have made
> them. Without explicit agreement that it's OK, I would not say that, but
> I might somehow communicate that if the person were to alter the
> behavior, it might help me. It depends on how safe I feel in the
> relationship.
*nod* I can see how that would be useful. One of the tricky bits about
doing non-heirarchical poly - and my sweetie and I have been discussing
this very thing - is that it can be difficult to know what one has the
"right" to ask for.
I recently realized that I felt more comfortable, in some ways, when my
partner was married, because that gave me some built-in, if unspoken,
guidelines for what I could expect or ask for. It provided structure, and
if I didn't always *like* the structure (especially when the marriage was
causing zir pain), at least I knew where I stood.
Since the divorce, I've been flailing a bit; I know the relationship has
changed, but we haven't talked much about what its new shape might become.
That may not even be possible yet; this is a period of flux for zir in ways
that go well beyond our relationship, and it will take some time for that
to settle. But it's been good to realize and acknowledge that the lack of
defined boundaries is a big part of what gives me occasional fits of angst.
Now that we both know that and are talking about it, I think we'll be
better equipped to deal with it, but it's still a little unsettling.
--
Pat Kight
kig...@peak.org
Fifth Teletubby
>...when I'm being a GAS-bag...
Teehee!! Love it.
--
Piglet
Pat Kight
> In article <Jt6dnaFhMur...@scnresearch.com>,
> Pat Kight <kig...@peak.org> wrote:
>
>>Stef wrote:
>>
>>>I got a lot better at controlling my tendency to offer GAS in place
>>>of sympathy when I realized that sympathy was the perfect tool for
>>>solving some problems, even problems that have a nearby source.
>>
>>Mind if I ask for some examples? I think I could use sympathy-giving
>>lessons...
>
>
> Option: "Could you tell me more about why this is so upsetting?"
>
> Another option: "Is there anything I can do to help or make you feel
> better?"
Good suggestions, both. I think the second would be more useful in our
relationship, because often it's not so much a case of my partner being
upset over anything in particular as it is a matter of zir depression/ADHD
kicking in and making life in general frustrating and tiring. That sort of
thing is rarely amenable to "fixing," but I don't always recognize when
that's what's going on.
The good news is that I just found out that my tendency toward GAS in such
circumstances is evidently much less annoying to my sweetie than it is to
me. Which is a relief, and should help me stop banging my head against the
desk when we hang up the phone.
--
Pat Kight
kig...@peak.org
Lars Fischer
> Laura Elizabeth Back <leb...@cyclone.stanford.edu> wrote:
>
>>*With the partner with whom I most often run
>>into these problems, one of our issues is that as soon as I tell him I'm
>>upset, he gets so caught up in asserting his lack of blameworthiness that
>>he fails to be comforting. Maybe the key is avoiding making him think I
>>blame him...
>
> I sometimes try to "frame" such conversations by saying "I don't think
> it's your fault." That doesn't completely do away with the defensive
> reaction, but it sometimes helps.
You also may end up feeling that you're apologizing for feeling the way
you do. But yes, it can help.
I have this problem myself, mind. When someone is upset, I feel blamed.
It's gotten better and it has taken a lot of hard work, but I still
have issues. I realize that (for me) it's a self-esteem thing. If you
think of yourself as someone who should be blamed, you'll hear blame.
So part of it (again, for me) is improving self-esteem. However, it
also has a lot to do with seeing the other person. Sometimes, if I feel
blamed, I managed to step back a bit from myself and focus on just
hearing and seeing the other person[1]. Once I do that, "feeling
blamed" is usually replaced by compassion.
Since being seen is often a major part of being comforted (and healed),
focusing on seeing the other person helps both of us.
If I had that problem repeatedly with a partner, I would try to go meta.
I'd do that at some time when I'm not upset and not seeking comfort.
I would try to explain how that behaviour makes me feel. And I'm ask of
there's anything in me that provokes the reaction. I know that for me,
getting better at this has made me feel better in many ways.
/Lars
[1] Zen and the art of conversation?
Stef
Pat Kight <kig...@peak.org> wrote:
>*nod* I can see how that would be useful. One of the tricky bits about
>doing non-heirarchical poly - and my sweetie and I have been discussing
>this very thing - is that it can be difficult to know what one has the
>"right" to ask for.
Absolutely, although I wouldn't so much draw a distinction between
hierarchical and non-hierarchical as I would draw a distinction between
having a structure that's relatively stable vs. not having such a
structure because the structure is in the process of being discussed,
drawn up, or built.
>I recently realized that I felt more comfortable, in some ways, when my
>partner was married, because that gave me some built-in, if unspoken,
>guidelines for what I could expect or ask for. It provided structure, and
>if I didn't always *like* the structure (especially when the marriage was
>causing zir pain), at least I knew where I stood.
Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.
>Since the divorce, I've been flailing a bit; I know the relationship has
>changed, but we haven't talked much about what its new shape might become.
>That may not even be possible yet; this is a period of flux for zir in ways
>that go well beyond our relationship, and it will take some time for that
>to settle. But it's been good to realize and acknowledge that the lack of
>defined boundaries is a big part of what gives me occasional fits of angst.
>
>Now that we both know that and are talking about it, I think we'll be
>better equipped to deal with it, but it's still a little unsettling.
I can really understand why it's unsettling. I'm so glad you're talking,
though. (Not that you weren't before - just in general, you seem to have
a pretty communicative relationship, and that's a good thing.) I hope
you find comfort.
--
Stef ** avid/sensible/sensual/wise/essential/elemental/tangle
** st...@cat-and-dragon.com <*> http://www.cat-and-dragon.com/stef
**
A woman who is guided by the head and not by the heart is a social
pestilence: she has all the defects of the passionate and affectionate
woman, with none of her compensations; she is without pity, without
love, without virtue, without sex. --Balzac (Flame Bait Hall of Fame)
Stef
>Stef wrote:
>> Laura Elizabeth Back <leb...@cyclone.stanford.edu> wrote:
>>
>>>*With the partner with whom I most often run
>>>into these problems, one of our issues is that as soon as I tell him I'm
>>>upset, he gets so caught up in asserting his lack of blameworthiness that
>>>he fails to be comforting. Maybe the key is avoiding making him think I
>>>blame him...
>>
>> I sometimes try to "frame" such conversations by saying "I don't think
>> it's your fault." That doesn't completely do away with the defensive
>> reaction, but it sometimes helps.
>
>You also may end up feeling that you're apologizing for feeling the way
>you do. But yes, it can help.
I don't often think I'm apologizing for feeling a particular way,
although I sometimes apologize for acting cranky because I'm feeling a
particular way.
But you know, I don't think I drew the distinction before; if someone
thinks I'm asking them to apologize for feeling something, I can
understand why they resist talking about how I feel upset when they
behave in certain ways as a result of their feeling certain things.
That's helpful.
>I have this problem myself, mind. When someone is upset, I feel blamed.
The BigCorporation[tm] I once worked for sent me to a people skills
class, in which I learned that people always feel defensive when they
are criticized, so there are several steps to discussing problems, and
one of them is to reflect the feelings behind the defensiveness, because
then they are more likely to go away. After that, you discuss the
problem.
I don't think that theory is 100% accurate, but at least it stopped me
from feeling like it was my fault if someone felt defensive, and it
stopped me from feeling like I was The Only Oversensitive Person In the
Universe if I felt defensive.
>Sometimes, if I feel
>blamed, I managed to step back a bit from myself and focus on just
>hearing and seeing the other person[1]. Once I do that, "feeling
>blamed" is usually replaced by compassion.
Well said.
>Since being seen is often a major part of being comforted (and healed),
> focusing on seeing the other person helps both of us.
Yes!
--
Stef ** avid/sensible/sensual/wise/essential/elemental/tangle
** st...@cat-and-dragon.com <*> http://www.cat-and-dragon.com/stef
**
The web of interconnections is wider and subtler than you can possibly
imagine. [...] It's a dizzying experience when you first look beneath
the surface of physical events and start to sense their origin.
-- Stephen Mitchell, Meetings with the Archangel
Orlando Enrique Fiol
>when I realize a conversation is going in a direction i don't want, I
>can say "I'd rather not have suggestions about this, I just want to
>rant" or "I know this is not something you can fix" or "I don't think
>this is really your fault" and then say what I do want the person to do
>(offer sympathy, be a sounding board, show me they are hearing what I am
>saying, etc.)
I've never really understood some people's need for blanket sympathy
without advice or suggestions for fixing the trouble. Perhaps, it's a
stereotypical gender-based chasm; I don't know. Most times, if I'm
having an existential crisis, I'd like some advice to help me improve
things. However, I tend not to like very much abstract advice because
it's often too hard to implement. For instance, if I complain to
someone about not finding enough work, I don't do well with empty
motivational peptalks designed to make me realize that I need to put
together my own group, etc. At those times, what I really need are
leads on possible places to play or interested promotors. Recently,
when I'd complained to a new friend about insufficient students, she
offered to put up fliers everywhere that she also put up hers, being
that she's a guitar instructor and wouldn't consider me competition. No
peptalks, no vapid "go get 'em" speeches, just an offer to do something
practical.
When I was married, my ex survived thyroid cancer and uterine sarcoma,
for which she attended support groups and wanted me to do the same. I
attended a few of the care givers group meetings and found that very
little practical help was being offered. In our situation, the ex was
unfortunately so depressed that she couldn't clean house, wash clothes
or do much cooking, even though she definitely could muster up the
energy to spend my money. Anyway, I realized that her thyroid exams
often incapacitated her and was surprised that no one in the support
group offered to help us out with anything practical. No one offered to
take me grocery shopping or come over and help sort out laundry that I
obviously couldn't distinguish because of this pesky sightlessness.
Everyone just issued platitudes about how things would get better and
gobs of other stuff I can't remember now.
So, given my and other men's penchants for practically motivated advice,
I'm curious why so many women honestly feel they don't need it. Surely,
it can't be as simple as millions of Western, educated women falling in
step with some sort of thought police telling them not to let men give
advice trying to fix their problems. So, what is it?
Orlando
Orlando Enrique Fiol
>Sometimes, it's important to me that I be the one who fixes it.
I usually don't care who fixes it as long as it gets better. That said,
there have been times when I've felt somehow cheated out of fixing my
own problems.
>I really hate it when someone starts suggesting all sorts of things without
>having enough information about the problem to make useful suggestions.
>Then I think I'm not being listened to.
This gets tricky for me because I realize that when I insist that people
listening to me really don't understand everything involved with my
problem, they counter that I'm only making excuses and really don't want
to solve it. Obviously, if I'm talking about it in the first place,
it's because I want to solve it, being that I rarely complain for its
own sake. So, which is it? Am I making excuses or are they missing
crucial details?
Orlando
Orlando Enrique Fiol
>For me, one of the reasons a "Why didn't you just _say_ so?" is a
>difficult question to deal with is that I hear it as a rhetorical
>question that's merely a decorated version of "You should have told me,"
>or worse, "You were wrong to have not told me."
What if you're the kind not to want unsolicited advice but later realize
that the exact advice being offered was exactly what you needed? If you
were to resent your interlocutor for holding off on giving the advice,
he/she might feel damned in either case.
Orlando
Orlando Enrique Fiol
>For what it's worth (I suspect I may be vastly in the minority here),
>those sorts of noises are only comforting to me because I know the
>person is trying to be comforting, and I figure that's a nice thing for
>them to want to do so they must care about me. What my feelings are
>when I hear them, though, are something like a feeling of being
>patronized, but not exactly. My feelings think the person is grabbing
>standard therapist talk from zir bag and using it on me impersonally,
>because the language feels impersonal.
I almost feel that if I merely wanted someone to listen to me vent
without offering advice or only gingerly hinting at it with rather
bland, pseudo psychobabble, it wouldn't really matter who I picked,
especially if their role would be largely silence punctuated with
sympathetic noises. For me, if I want to tell someone my trouble and I
choose them over someone else, it's because I want to interact with
them, to have a true dialogue during which they don't just listen
distantly but also reflect on what I'm saying.
>Then again, I'm also not fond of
>having people tell me what they would do to fix my situation, so I guess
>people can't win (*waves to Aahz*) with me.
I hate when people use that particular trope of saying they'd do this or
that, especially when I know they actually wouldn't do it. They're just
using that trope to avoid saying I should do X. Well, bring it on!
Just tell me I should do X and get it over with. <grin>
Orlando
Orlando Enrique Fiol
>Since I use that language when I don't have specific information about what someone
>wants when they're upset, it is impersonal in a sense.
Would you be interested in seeming more personal or at least using more
personal sounding language at such times? I guess your answer would
largely depend on what they wanted. I know that if we were having such
a discussion, I might clue you in if I found your language uncomfortably
impersonal.
>Sometimes it also happens to be what someone particularly wants, in which case it's
>personal when I use it with them.
Why do people actually want such talk? Is it therapy conditioning or
something more sinister?
Orlando
Ryk
>In article <YoCdnRUg_M-...@scnresearch.com>,
>Pat Kight <kig...@peak.org> wrote:
>>What I don't do, as a rule, is add "... and I want you to stop doing X
>>right now." Although sometimes I wish I could.
>
>Explicit permission for saying that is built into my poly agreement with
>my primary.
I guess I'm a little different from some people. If a partner tells me
"I am unhappy/upset/[other negative feeling] that you are doing X",
then I automatically interpret that to include " ... and I want you to
stop doing X right now" unless the partner also says something like,
"but my unhappiness/upset/[other negative feeling] is my problem to
deal with and I'm *not* asking you to stop doing X."
So I'm ready to hear "I was wrong about being OK with X" and I'm ready
to hear "I am unhappy/upset/[other negative feeling] that you are
doing X" and I'm ready to hear "I want you to stop doing X right now"
without having explicitly agreed to it in advance. What I'm not ready
for is getting dumped on for having done X, or getting dumped on for
not changing specific plans I've already made to do X, or being made
to feel that the unhappiness/upset/[other negative feeling] is somehow
my fault and my responsibility to deal with. It catches me by surprise
and feels unfair every time it happens.
> I was not comfortable with making such requests at first,
>but it has worked well in that relationship on the occasions I have made
>them. Without explicit agreement that it's OK, I would not say that, but
>I might somehow communicate that if the person were to alter the
>behavior, it might help me. It depends on how safe I feel in the
>relationship.
If I knew that a partner was upset and that X was the proximal cause,
then I would probably assume the rest. For much of my history I would
probably give in and stop doing X if I could, even if it was something
I wanted, because it was easier than getting dumped on. I still do it.
It's part of the reason my boat is hauled out high and dry for the
winter instead of sailing south down the east coast. At least in that
case I can point at some other reasons that helped tip the balance.
Ryk
Ryk
<soaring-pho...@the-looney-bin.org> wrote:
>In article <chk3l11cir8me50a3...@4ax.com>, Ryk
><r...@wellingtonhouse.org> wrote:
>>I usually make an effort to check back and find out if somebody really
>>means what they say if I even suspect it's not sincere, or if what
>>they said surprises me.
>>
>That would drive me insane.
>
>I make a huge effort to say what I mean, and be upfront. I was
>second-guessed so much by an ex and not taken at face value that being
>suspected of not being sincere, or flat-out being told that they knew
>I didn't mean what I said made me very angry.
>
>I'm not saying that's what you do, but it's a button for me that more
>than a very rare checkback would drive me nuts.
I would very rarely check back with somebody unless we had a history
that showed the face value interpretation was unreliable.
>>How long? Did it solve the problem of having a partner be upset after
>>telling you something would be OK?
>>
>IANMarc, but I've had to reinforce this with several of my partners.
>If I say I'm OK with something, I'm either perfectly fine with it, or
>it's my own problem if it ends up that I'm not (see Pat's earlier
>comment).
That would suit me, except I've been burned by it more than once.
Ryk
Ryk
<E-0C0013...@cleopatra.co.uk> wrote:
>In alt.polyamory, (Brooks Moses) wrote in
>>It has, on occasion, helped me to remember that I usually have a
>>perfectly real answer to that: "I honestly thought that I wasn't going
>>to be distressed by it, and then when I was, it was too late for me to
>>tell you without being additionally distressed about surprising you with
>>my distress at a very inopportune time" -- or things roughly like that.
And it would probably also help to add "So this was my mistake, not
yours"
>I am much more tolerant of an honest mistake like that, than I am of
>"testing". I don't do "relationship by landmine" any more.
Land mines suck! (Didn't we all sign some treaty banning them?)
Sometimes the person with the land mine didn't put it there and
doesn't know it's details. That can really suck.
Ryk
Pat Kight
> So, given my and other men's penchants for practically motivated advice,
> I'm curious why so many women honestly feel they don't need it. Surely,
> it can't be as simple as millions of Western, educated women falling in
> step with some sort of thought police telling them not to let men give
> advice trying to fix their problems. So, what is it?
I'm both a fixer and a "I don't need fixing, I just need comforting" sort
of person, which can be ... interesting, in a "do as I say, not as I do"
sort of way.
Sometimes I feel bad about something that I know isn't amenable to fixing.
It might be an emotional state I recognize as temporary (feeling sad
because of it's a grey, gloomy day - I can't change the weather, but I
still feel what I feel. It might be that I'm distressed about something I
know can't be fixed (the fact that my sweetheart and I live far enough
apart that we can't see each other often, for instance). Sometimes the
problem is fixable and I'm already taking steps to fix it, but I'm not
enjoying the process and just want to rant and whine a little.
In situations like that, the best thing anybody can do for me is offer
sympathy, not suggestions.
I hasten to add that I'm not as good at identifying when the same thing is
true for someone else; my own impulse is also to offer solutions, even when
I know they're neither needed nor welcomed. I'm learning, slowly, to
recognize situations in which the best thing to do is offer love and
support, not solutions.
The person in my life who doesn't need help fixing things is, for the
record, male.
--
Pat Kight
kig...@peak.org
Steve Pope
>Indirect communication, in which a statement has a real meaning that's
>different from its face value meaning, is a form of communication. It's
>not automatically a mind game, even though it can be used *in* a mind
>game. It works best when all parties understand the connotation grammar
>- the same way that humor based on double meanings does.
While I agree that indirect communication is not automatically
a mind-game, it probably seems to many to be indistinguishable
from a mind game even in cases where the indirect communicators
do not intend it as such.
Steve
Ryk
<eli...@everybodycansing.com> wrote:
>"Ryk" <r...@wellingtonhouse.org> wrote in message
>> While sympathy is better than nothing when I'm upset, fixing the
>> problem goes a lot farther towards making me feel better.
>
>Does it matter whether you fix it, or whether someone else fixes it?
Usually the things that upset me are things that I can't fix, or that
I don't know how to fix. If I know how to fix it and I can do it, then
I usually just fix it.
Ryk
Pat Kight
Just as direct communication can sometimes be indistinguishable from
bullying even in cases where the direct communicators do not intend it as such.
Neither form of communication, IMO, should be considered privileged over
the other. But it's useful to identify which form(s) are being practiced,
and to try to understand that they are simply what they are - different
communication styles - rather than concluding that mind games or malice are
at work.
--
Pat Kight
kig...@peak.org
Mean Green Dancing Machine
Ryk <r...@wellingtonhouse.org> wrote:
>
>I guess I'm a little different from some people. If a partner tells me
>"I am unhappy/upset/[other negative feeling] that you are doing X",
>then I automatically interpret that to include " ... and I want you to
>stop doing X right now" unless the partner also says something like,
>"but my unhappiness/upset/[other negative feeling] is my problem to
>deal with and I'm *not* asking you to stop doing X."
Well, ya know, ya could ask. But you already knew that. ;-)
Ann Burlingham
> st...@panix.com wrote:
> >when I realize a conversation is going in a direction i don't want, I
> >can say "I'd rather not have suggestions about this, I just want to
> >rant" or "I know this is not something you can fix" or "I don't think
> >this is really your fault" and then say what I do want the person to do
> >(offer sympathy, be a sounding board, show me they are hearing what I am
> >saying, etc.)
I ltqaught myself to say "right now I need sympathy, not advice."
> I've never really understood some people's need for blanket sympathy
> without advice or suggestions for fixing the trouble.
That's why it's so useful to be able to make the distinction. "I'm
telling you this for sympathy" may or may not be coupled with "I'd
like your advice."
> So, given my and other men's penchants for practically motivated advice,
> I'm curious why so many women honestly feel they don't need it. Surely,
> it can't be as simple as millions of Western, educated women falling in
> step with some sort of thought police telling them not to let men give
> advice trying to fix their problems.
When you have such deep understanding that "thought police" is your
best bet, who *wouldn't* want your advice?
> So, what is it?
Sometimes knowing that someone understands what you're going through
is better than having a solution. Sometimes - more often than not -
one knows the solution already, and needs no advice. Sometimes the
"advice" is what would work for the person one is talking to, but not
for oneself.
Sometimes one needs to feel the feelings before working on the next step.
--
What use was it having all that money if you could never sit still
or just watch your cattle eating grass?
- Alexander McCall Smith, _The No.1 Ladies' Detective Agency_
Ann Burlingham
*What* and *when* are two different components. The best advice in the
world, offered at the wrong time, won't be heard.
I would suggest that when the urge to offer advice when none was
sought comes upon one, the phrase "May I offer some advice?" should
precede it. There is also "Is this a good time for a suggestion, or
would later be better?"
Ryk
Machine) wrote:
>In article <9255l11k1v2i9p7du...@4ax.com>,
>Ryk <r...@wellingtonhouse.org> wrote:
>>
>>I guess I'm a little different from some people. If a partner tells me
>>"I am unhappy/upset/[other negative feeling] that you are doing X",
>>then I automatically interpret that to include " ... and I want you to
>>stop doing X right now" unless the partner also says something like,
>>"but my unhappiness/upset/[other negative feeling] is my problem to
>>deal with and I'm *not* asking you to stop doing X."
>
>Well, ya know, ya could ask. But you already knew that. ;-)
Part of how I got there *was* by asking and getting responses like "Of
course I want you to stop". The other part of how I got there was
getting dumped on until I stopped...
Ryk
Lars Fischer
> I've never really understood some people's need for blanket sympathy
> without advice or suggestions for fixing the trouble. Perhaps, it's a
> stereotypical gender-based chasm; I don't know.
Lots of women fix when they should be listening, and lots of men want to
be seen and understood more than they want advice. You know - the
classic male thing: sharing your sorrows with a buddy over a bottle of
Jack D. or a number of pints at the local pub. It's often done, and yet
very few practical solutions or fixes are offered in that kind situation.
> Most times, if I'm
> having an existential crisis, I'd like some advice to help me improve
> things. However, I tend not to like very much abstract advice because
> it's often too hard to implement.
For me, there's a good chance I need to understand something or accept
something rather than fix something. And that something is probably in
me; no fix you offer will get me there.
Sympathy and comfort may help me relax about it, help me feel OK about
myself. And I need that before I can understand something. A few
questions may help me focus my attention. Especially if those questions
are asked from a position of understanding of how I feel.
A suggestion on how to improve things is not necessarily bad. However,
for it to be relevant you need to see where I am and understand what I'm
going thru' - and that requires attention. If you're focused on finding
solutions and fixes, your attention is probably elsewhere. The problem
with fixing is often that the fix is offered too soon, without real
understanding of what is needed, and to someone who lacks the insight to
make use of the fix anyway.
Often, the advice that is meant to be practical end up being relevant to
the person giving it, not to the person receiving it.
> So, given my and other men's penchants for practically motivated advice,
> I'm curious why so many women honestly feel they don't need it. Surely,
> it can't be as simple as millions of Western, educated women falling in
> step with some sort of thought police telling them not to let men give
> advice trying to fix their problems. So, what is it?
That millions of western men can't be bothered to see women as they are
and listen to what they say?
/Lars
--
For a young woman to go on her first date with a gay man is a terrible
thing. She'll enter adult life believing men listen to what she says.
Laura Elizabeth Back
>Sometimes I feel bad about something that I know isn't amenable to fixing.
>It might be an emotional state I recognize as temporary (feeling sad
>because of it's a grey, gloomy day - I can't change the weather, but I
>still feel what I feel. It might be that I'm distressed about something I
>know can't be fixed (the fact that my sweetheart and I live far enough
>apart that we can't see each other often, for instance). Sometimes the
>problem is fixable and I'm already taking steps to fix it, but I'm not
>enjoying the process and just want to rant and whine a little.
>
>In situations like that, the best thing anybody can do for me is offer
>sympathy, not suggestions.
*nods* Seeble all that.
It is also sometimes the case for me that, once I've reached a state of
distress, that state sort of takes on a life of its own. Even if the
thing that triggered it *can* be fixed, that's not necessarily going to
fix my distress: sometimes what I need for that is help relaxing and
letting the unhappy-chemicals dissipate. Comforting gestures can be good
for that. So can validation of my feelings ("Oh, shit; that really does
suck"), because one of the things aggravating the distress is usually the
fact that, on some level, I'm beating myself up for feeling it in the
first place.
--
Laura E. Back
Lars Fischer
> I would suggest that when the urge to offer advice when none was
> sought comes upon one, the phrase "May I offer some advice?" should
> precede it.
Yup. And it's worth remembering that you don't have to act on that
urge, and certainly not right away. If the advice is good, it'll work
just as well an hour from now, or maybe tomorrow.
It's also worth considering where the urge comes from. Is it because
you have this amazingly clever solution? Is it because you like the
position of authority that comes with giving advice? Or do you want the
other person to stop hurting because you don't know how to handle it?
I guess the latter is quite common. It's terrible to have a close
friend or loved one suffering. It's natural to want the suffering to
stop. Hence the urge to offer a quick fix - rather than helping the
other one thru' the suffering.
/Lars
Lars Fischer
> For me, if I want to tell someone my trouble and I
> choose them over someone else, it's because I want to interact with
> them, to have a true dialogue during which they don't just listen
> distantly but also reflect on what I'm saying.
But there's other forms of "true dialogue" than offering fixes and
solutions. In fact, there's not much "true dialogue" about fixes and
solutions.
Likewise, you can certainly reflect on what's being said w/o offering a
fix. I should think the one can do more reflecting if one is not
focused on finding fixes.
To me, true dialogue takes place when someone asks "A few weeks ago you
told me X; is there a relation to what you've just told me?". Or say
"while not exactly the same, I once experienced Y, and this made me
feel...". Or maybe just "When A said X, what did you feel?". Two
things happen in a dialog like that: I feel seen and understood, and get
help to do my own thinking. This is much, much better than being
offered a shrink-wrapped solution.
/Lars
Mean Green Dancing Machine
Hrm. Nevertheless, I think it is still a good idea to request the other
person to make an explicit request for stopping.
Pat Kight
> It's also worth considering where the urge comes from. Is it because
> you have this amazingly clever solution? Is it because you like the
> position of authority that comes with giving advice? Or do you want the
> other person to stop hurting because you don't know how to handle it?
When my GAS tendencies show up with friends or acquaintainces, it's usually
No. 1 and occasionally No. 2. When it's a situation involving someone I
love, almost always that last.
>
> I guess the latter is quite common. It's terrible to have a close
> friend or loved one suffering. It's natural to want the suffering to
> stop. Hence the urge to offer a quick fix - rather than helping the
> other one thru' the suffering.
Exactly. I'm lucky that my partner understands where the impulse comes
from; that reduces the friction when I throw advice in zir direction at
inopportune moments. But I'm working on getting better at not doing it, or
at least acknowledging up front why I am.
--
Pat Kight
kig...@peak.org
Ann Burlingham
> It's also worth considering where the urge comes from. Is it because
> you have this amazingly clever solution? Is it because you like the
> position of authority that comes with giving advice? Or do you want
> the other person to stop hurting because you don't know how to handle
> it?
>
> I guess the latter is quite common. It's terrible to have a close
> friend or loved one suffering. It's natural to want the suffering to
> stop. Hence the urge to offer a quick fix - rather than helping the
> other one thru' the suffering.
Bingo. It's hard to feel helpless.
The Lorax
>Steve Pope wrote:
>> While I agree that indirect communication is not automatically
>> a mind-game, it probably seems to many to be indistinguishable
>> from a mind game even in cases where the indirect communicators
>> do not intend it as such.
>
>Just as direct communication can sometimes be indistinguishable from
>bullying even in cases where the direct communicators do not intend it as such.
>
>Neither form of communication, IMO, should be considered privileged over
>the other. But it's useful to identify which form(s) are being practiced,
>and to try to understand that they are simply what they are - different
>communication styles - rather than concluding that mind games or malice are
>at work.
True communications considers the recipient as well as the sender and
is a two way process. Anything else is broadcasting and sometimes
works and sometimes doesn't.
The way I communicate with some people is very different than the way
I do with other people because of the way they interpret what I am
sending. And sometimes there simply will be people with whom I cannot
communicate effectively. I'm usually willing to put a fair amount of
effort into it, but to a point.
--
Polymath, geek, HPBB extraordinaire...
The Lorax
wrote:
Often times I'm thinking out loud and like to have someone else
listening as a reality check. I generally come up with my own answers
and I'm happy to have someone else help fix a problem if what they
offer is truly helpful. But having to wade through an endless parade
of impractical or unworkable "solutions," many of which I had already
considered, is annoying and distracts me from working on the problem.
Carla
> I hate it when the answer is (shorn of any decoration): "You were supposed
> to *know* I didn't mean it."
Well, heck, I'd hate that, too :) I don't expect mind-reading.
It's more like "I don't mind if you do <a particular thing>. Or, if I
do mind, that's my issue and I will, eventually, get over it."
If *circumstances* around this thing result in my distress, I want my
partner(s) to understand - it's not the thing itself, but the
circumstances. And if they think it's because I really *didn't* want
them to do <a particular thing>, they're not "getting it".
Get it? :)
Cheers,
Carla
Lars Fischer
> Sometimes one needs to feel the feelings before working on the next step.
Indeed. When I'm really hurting, most of the time I'm trying to figure
out what I'm feeling. I know what happened, but why did it cause me to
crash *this* bad? Did it make me feel abandoned? Helpless? etc. And
why? What past experiences did this evoke? etc.
Once I have reasonable answers to all that, figuring out what I have to
do now, and what I should do next time something similar happens is not
too hard. And it makes sense only if I *do* have those answers.
/Lars
Steve Pope
>Steve Pope wrote:
>> While I agree that indirect communication is not automatically
>> a mind-game, it probably seems to many to be indistinguishable
>> from a mind game even in cases where the indirect communicators
>> do not intend it as such.
>Just as direct communication can sometimes be indistinguishable from
>bullying even in cases where the direct communicators do not intend it as such.
>Neither form of communication, IMO, should be considered privileged over
>the other.
Offhand, I disagree.
Can you give me an example wherein direct commincation is
"perceived as bullying" and indirect communication would
be superior?
Steve
serene
> In article <h9i2l1pevul3icat9...@4ax.com>,
> ChickPea <E-0C0013...@cleopatra.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>>If I'm told, "No problem, you have a night out with the boys" or "Of course
>>I don't mind if you X", I *will* take it at face value, because I can't
>>stand mind-games. Even (or even especially) if I suspect it's not sincere.
>
>
> I can understand your having come up with this solution to deal with
> someone who uses indirect communication to manipulate you, and it sounds
> like it's working for you now, so that's cool.
>
> But I do think that taking something at face value when you suspect it's
> not meant to be taken that way is a form of mind game too.
>
> Indirect communication, in which a statement has a real meaning that's
> different from its face value meaning, is a form of communication. It's
> not automatically a mind game, even though it can be used *in* a mind
> game. It works best when all parties understand the connotation grammar
> - the same way that humor based on double meanings does.
This should be in a faq somewhere.
Serene, who had to learn the language of indirect communication, and had
to learn that indirect communicators are usually NOT trying to play games