Experiences with Manipulators?
ring...@usa.net
monogamous relationship, and using polyamoury as a justification for
putting the moves on one member of a stated monogamous relationship?
I've looked through most of the posts and web sites and I can't find
any advise on how to protect yourself and your partners from people
who intrude on committed relationships with poor intentions.
In particular I'm thinking of someone who has a habit of moving on
vulnerable partners in damaged relationships. What I need is some
advise on what sort of tactics those people use, and what the warning
signs of such behavior are.
I know that lies and preying on the other person's sexual inadequecies
are two, but these two are difficult to spot and/or confront. This
also tends to occur in troubled relationships anyway.
In effect, this would be someone who "talks the talk", but doesn't
"walk the walk". A person more interested in striking up a sexual
relationship with anyone without regard for the damage that it might
cause to them or their primary relationship.
I suspect that this is what has happened to me with my partner, but my
relationship skills are not good enough to really be able to pick out
the difference between deception and my own errors in judgement.
Also, is cheating in terms of an emotional relationship just as bad as
striking up a sexual one? I think yes, but I just can't know.
How much lying is too much? How do you guard against being lied to,
and how do you pick out the difference between lies and honest
mistakes?
What are some good reliable warning signs that a partner is cheating?
What are the minimum standards that one should expect in an outside
partner if I were willing to consider poly or swinging? Could I
enforce a blanket veto on a certain type of person?
umar
>Does anyone have any experience with people forcing themselves into a
>monogamous relationship, and using polyamoury as a justification for
>putting the moves on one member of a stated monogamous relationship?
>I've looked through most of the posts and web sites and I can't find
>any advise on how to protect yourself and your partners from people
>who intrude on committed relationships with poor intentions.
I doubt it's possible to "steal" the affections of someone's husband or
wife. The "intruder" can only make an offer; it is up to the person
supposedly being "stolen" to decide whether or not to violate the terms of
his or her marriage.
I think the concept of "alienation of affection" is largely an excuse used
by ex-spouses to absolve themselves of any responsibility for ending
relationships, thus: "It wasn't *my* fault, and it wasn't my beloved X's
fault, either; that scoundrel Y appeared, poisoned our marriage, and took
her away from me." But surely the seeds of the marriage's downfall were
sown by X and her ex long before Y ever made his appearance.
This is not to say there aren't slimeballs out there who like to take
advantage of people's weaknesses; there certainly are, and if only a few
of them have made "polyamory" a part of their vocabulary that's likely
because the word and the concept are still largely unknown to most people.
But to spouses who work to keep their relationship healthy, it won't
matter how many slimeballs come knocking at the door.
The question one has to ask is whether the catalyst of a breakup is the
real cause of the breakup, or whether other, more subtle factors were at
work. Is the concept of polyamory to blame, for instance, when someone
decides to try it and his or her marriage self-destructs?
umar
Vicki Rosenzweig
>Does anyone have any experience with people forcing themselves into a
>monogamous relationship, and using polyamoury as a justification for
>putting the moves on one member of a stated monogamous relationship?
>I've looked through most of the posts and web sites and I can't find
>any advise on how to protect yourself and your partners from people
>who intrude on committed relationships with poor intentions.
>
The only advice I can offer here is to be blunt: "I'm married/
partnered and we don't get involved with other people."
><snip>
>
>Also, is cheating in terms of an emotional relationship just as bad as
>striking up a sexual one? I think yes, but I just can't know.
Yes, no, and maybe. It's as bad if it does as much damage. A
lot depends on the terms of your relationship--even if it's a given
that you won't have sex with outsiders, that doesn't tell me how
you feel about other-sex close friendships, or what either of you
is supposed to do if you find yourself attracted to someone else.
(Enjoy it from a distance? Tell all? Hide it and avoid the person
you're attracted to until it fades? Keep being friends, but avoid
ever being alone together? Other?)
>
<snip>
>
>What are the minimum standards that one should expect in an outside
>partner if I were willing to consider poly or swinging? Could I
>enforce a blanket veto on a certain type of person?
This really is one that only your and your partner can decide.
Honesty is a good starting point, as is a willingness to follow
safer-sex precautions. Beyond that, the questions should be things
like What would make us comfortable? rather than What do people on
Usenet find makes them comfortable?
"There are nine and sixty ways
Of constructing tribal lays
And every single one of them
Is right"
--
Vicki Rosenzweig
v...@redbird.org | http://www.redbird.org
Welcome to the century of the iguana:
http://www.redbird.org/iguana.html
piranha
>Does anyone have any experience with people forcing themselves into a
>monogamous relationship, and using polyamoury as a justification for
>putting the moves on one member of a stated monogamous relationship?
not particularly, but i don't see that as any different
from a non-poly (single) person doing the same.
the response is best: "sorry, i am committed to my part-
ner and not interested in a relationship with you", or
"i might be interested in a relationship with you, but
i am committed to my partner, and will _not_ -- listen
to me! NOT leave my partner for you, and i will break
up with you if i ever find you trying to manipulate me
into doing so."
>I've looked through most of the posts and web sites and I can't find
>any advise on how to protect yourself and your partners from people
>who intrude on committed relationships with poor intentions.
the best protection is a good relationship with your
partner. IMO that can't actually be damaged by an out-
side party. if your partner believes a third party
over you, something between the two of you is broken.
if my relationship is teetering on the brink, i'd be
looking to myself first for reasons, not to outsiders.
they don't make it happen. i do and my partner does.
i've never swallowed the idea of the "home breaker"
with which mainstream society seems so happy.
if your partner has run into a psychopath who is fabri-
cating evidence to pull zir away from you, then you'd
have a case. but that's right up there with meteoroids
striking you -- way more common in hollywood than in
real life.
>In particular I'm thinking of someone who has a habit of moving on
>vulnerable partners in damaged relationships. What I need is some
>advise on what sort of tactics those people use, and what the warning
>signs of such behavior are.
yeah, there are such people. i can't really tell you
how they do it; it's something one spots by experience,
and one gains that experience by being exposed to them.
it's also hard to tell a nasty manipulator from some-
body who truly thinks the existing relationship is bad
for a person, and who is trying to save zir. it gets
_really_ messy when that saviour has a romantic inter-
est zirself in the person zie's trying to rescue.
that is probably the one i see most often. is it mani-
pulative to emphasize the shortcomings of the "competi-
tion"? not per se. it's an ethical dilemma, though.
>I know that lies and preying on the other person's sexual inadequecies
>are two, but these two are difficult to spot and/or confront.
one could always ask one's partner whether this is hap-
pening.
>In effect, this would be someone who "talks the talk", but doesn't
>"walk the walk". A person more interested in striking up a sexual
>relationship with anyone without regard for the damage that it might
>cause to them or their primary relationship.
could be. some people use "polyamory" as an excuse for
what is really serial monogamy. or, my least favourite,
as an excuse for why they just "have to" cheat.
>I suspect that this is what has happened to me with my partner, but my
>relationship skills are not good enough to really be able to pick out
>the difference between deception and my own errors in judgement.
i find straight-forward questions make lies easier to
spot. and if i spot not lies, but weaseling, that is
quite bad enough, and needs working on.
>Also, is cheating in terms of an emotional relationship just as bad as
>striking up a sexual one? I think yes, but I just can't know.
maybe. it depends on what agreements one has made about
that. most people actually don't bother; at best they
make agreements about sex, and so emotional stuff can
get really entangled, because neither has ever declared
just what sort of emotional relationship zie thinks zie
can have outside of the primary relationship.
>How much lying is too much?
however much erodes trust, IMO.
>How do you guard against being lied to,
you don't, really. pick ethical partners, and be open
to discussing difficult issues. if you make it very
hard for somebody to come to you and be open about some-
thing, you're preparing the ground for lies.
>and how do you pick out the difference between lies and honest
>mistakes?
once can be a mistake, twice is a lie. that's glib, but
that's pretty much how i handle it.
an accumulation of "once" mistakes in the same area of
concern pretty much amounts to lies for me as well.
and if not lies, then a serious lack of self-knowledge.
that's just as bad to live with for me.
>What are some good reliable warning signs that a partner is cheating?
there are no "good, reliable" ones. there are only sup-
positions. any one of them might have a perfectly inno-
cent reason instead.
unexplained or badly explained absences. being seen by
friends in the close company of somebody else whom you
don't recognize as a friend. phone calls that abruptly
end when you enter the room. phone callers who hang up
when you answer the phone (in increased number). a no-
ticeable increase in the preparations to make oneself
attractive before going out. lots of late nights at work,
but the phone doesn't always get answered when you call
there.
as i said, those things can mean anything. they don't
_have_ to mean somebody is cheating.
here's what i do:
i ask. "are you involved with somebody else? please
tell me the truth, even if you think this will hurt me
badly. not knowing the truth makes me feel worse, and
having these suspicions leaves me with an ugly feeling,
and it's damaging our relationship."
if i get a no, and we've talked about what made me think
so, and i've given it a solid try, but the intuition does
not go away, then i spy.
usually by that time the relationship is badly damaged,
and i ought to get out of it, but i prefer to know whether
i am the ass or the other person is before doing so. i
have done this once. (i was right, and i did get out.)
>What are the minimum standards that one should expect in an outside
>partner if I were willing to consider poly or swinging? Could I
>enforce a blanket veto on a certain type of person?
that depends on the agreement you make with a partner.
different people do this differently. there are no
fixed rules. you create what you can handle, and lots
of people start with some ground rules and then make
it up as they go along, because one can't always know
how one will react to the reality of other partners.
i personally want honesty, i want to know the others,
i want no middleman in between us if there are problems,
i am uncomfortable with sexual promiscuity in a part-
ner (swinging gives me the creeps), i don't want to be
or have a secondary partner (but it's ok if my partner
does). beyond that, i really mostly want to know what
is happening, not have things sprung on me fully-grown.
some of those might be negotiable. the sexual things,
for the most part. the honesty isn't negotiable, and
i know from experience that secondary relationships are
not for me, i either end up wanting more, or withdrawing
too much.
-piranha
ring...@usa.net
The marriage is on an even keel, and things are better after a lot of
work and effort. However, I was more interested in finding out if
there was some sort of "toolkit" that would allow a person to
doublecheck their reactions and intentions. And those of others.
Basically, are there any good "slimball" detectors or books that give
information on how to be a good "slimeball" detector. The issue of
polymoury, it seems, is to be constantly taking risks with ones
intimate relationships.
Are there any good systems out there by which people mitigate the
risks? I've already had a harsh lesson in learning to say "no", and
sticking to gut instincts. Any further help would be appreciated
though.
ring...@usa.net
flamed into oblivion. Your post was a reiteration of what I'd actually
been tyring (inexpertly) to do over the last two months.
My issue really was that I was in serious doubt that I was doing the
right thing by being confrontational about this. I thought that I was
in a cheating situation, and I backed down and just about allowed a
fully relationship spring up between my wife and this other person.
But there was a fair amount of deception coming from both of them at
the outset.
The other manmade accusations about how I was acting out of jealousy.
My wife volunteered herself, of her own initiative, to break off the
relationship. Something that I never asked her to do. I was only
concerned that we were both in a situation in which we were being
conned and manipulated by this other person.
She also much later stated that she felt that a relationship with this
other person would have been bad as he was "Too selfish and immature."
I can't say that this has been a happy ending, but I love my wife more
than ever, and our marriage is much stronger now than it ever has
been. If she really feels he deserves to be her friend, so be it.
However, it has been a harsh lesson in communications and boundry
setting.
I've also recently found that other people have had similar
experiences with this individual being in a constant attitude of
making advances on other men's wives, fiances, and girlfriends with
very little respect for them or their relationships. Essentially going
on the principle that if you ask often enough you'll eventually get a
yes.
I was in doubt as to whether my jealousy was really a bad thing, or a
warning sign that there was something seriously wrong going on. I have
a horribly short temper due to my Attention Deficit Disorder. I have
_never_ lashed out at anyone in anger in over fifteen years, but this
strained my abilities to the limit. It was very difficult to pick out
the differences between irrational anger, and the real warning signs
of trouble.
I expect this is just another thing where only experience helps?
Michael Rosen
<ring...@usa.net> wrote in message
news:3944f6ee$0$16...@news.execpc.com...
<snip snip>
> Basically, are there any good "slimball" detectors or books that give
> information on how to be a good "slimeball" detector. The issue of
> polymoury, it seems, is to be constantly taking risks with ones
> intimate relationships.
I'm just looking for clarification here. Are you saying that polyamory
exposes one to greater risk of encountering slimeballs? Or that poly is in
some way "about" such risks? I'm just not sure what that sentence meant.
When I think about risk-taking in the context of relationships, I'm thinking
about risking my emotional investment in the other, in whatever "future" we
may have, and in their willingness to invest as well. "Slimeballs" get
rooted out (I devoutly hope!) before I start taking such risks.
How "slimeball"-risks figure particularly in polyamory as compared with
monogamy, well, the connection eludes me. Could you clarify, please?
--
Michael Rosen
"A book of verses underneath the bough,
A jug of wine, a loaf of bread -- and thou, and thou, and thou, and thou
Beside me singing in the wilderness" -- Om-m-m-mar Khay-y-y-yam
ring...@usa.net
wrote:
The world slimeball was actually first used in this thread by another.
I probably shouldn't have used it myself. Philanderer is a more
accurate term for what I'm thinking of. Someone who chases after
sexual and romantic encounters regardless of consequences or other's
relationships, predefined boundrys, or limitations.
More like a person who's irresponsible and immature, but also charming
and manipulative as all get out rather than actively evil.
I'm certain that polyamoury exposes one to a _LOT_ more risk than
monogamy. Extra people is extra complication, and thus harder to deal
with I think. (Like I have a lot of experience... NOT!)
My concern was to sound people more experienced than I out on the
issue of people who claim to be polyamourous, but are really just
philanderers. Just using poly as a means of getting as much sex as
possible. Wolves in sheep's clothing if you will.
If you have means of rooting them out, as you say, then that's what I
want to know. I've had a lot of trouble getting my mental furniture in
order since the issue of polyamoury was basically dumped in my lap by
my wife and this other person after I was married. I've been spending
a lot of time doubting my own judgement and instincts about things.
All around last year was a _REALLY_ bad year for us, and not just
because of the open marriange thing. If anything that was a symptom of
some things that were going wrong. Happily, those things are mostly
resolved. :)
I'm trying to sort though the wreckage of our near disasterous attempt
at poly to see where I was wrong, and where I was right. I think I was
mostly on the right of things, but there were some real bone-head
mistakes back there on my part, and a lot of things I haven't sorted
out yet.
Stef Maruch
>I'm certain that polyamoury exposes one to a _LOT_ more risk than
>monogamy. Extra people is extra complication, and thus harder to deal
>with I think.
But polyamory doesn't necessarily mean "extra people". People who are
doing a lot of serial-monogamy type dating are probably dealing with
more people than some poly people, who may collect a few sweeties and
settle down.
>My concern was to sound people more experienced than I out on the
>issue of people who claim to be polyamourous, but are really just
>philanderers. Just using poly as a means of getting as much sex as
>possible. Wolves in sheep's clothing if you will.
Well, there are people who lie to get sex. They might say any sort of
thing -- "I'm poly," "I love you," "I want to marry you." The key to
figuring out whether someone is lying to get an easy lay is to spend a
lot of time with zir before doing anything irrevocable, and in the
meantime only do with zir things you won't feel bad about afterward if
zie doesn't stick around.
>If you have means of rooting them out, as you say, then that's what I
>want to know. I've had a lot of trouble getting my mental furniture in
>order since the issue of polyamoury was basically dumped in my lap by
>my wife and this other person after I was married. I've been spending
>a lot of time doubting my own judgement and instincts about things.
Yeah, I know exactly what you mean. If you're asking about how to do a
poly situation so that it works for all involved, the answer is the same
-- go slow and think a lot before acting. Only with poly there's another
piece to the answer: Don't leave someone in the dark. Avoid surprises.
--
Stef ** rational/scientific/philosophical/mystical/magical/kitty **
** st...@cat-and-dragon.com <*> http://www.bayarea.net/~stef **
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I've been sentenced to life on Earth.
Heather Anne Nicoll
<ring...@usa.net> wrote:
> Someone who chases after sexual and romantic encounters regardless of
> consequences or other's relationships, predefined boundrys, or
> limitations.
> More like a person who's irresponsible and immature, but also charming
> and manipulative as all get out rather than actively evil.
I've occasionally encountered the type.
Granted that I've found that I'm not interested in being in any way
emotionally involved with people who are coming after me for a specific
emotional involvement (or, indeed, any emotional involvement), I haven't
had a problem dealing with that -- if someone expresses interest in my
attractiveness, say, rather than being interesting, engaging, and
someone I'd want to build a friendship with, then I'm going to wind up
feeling put off to start with.
> I'm certain that polyamoury exposes one to a _LOT_ more risk than
> monogamy. Extra people is extra complication, and thus harder to deal
> with I think. (Like I have a lot of experience... NOT!)
Well, in that one doesn't necessarily close down certain forms of
contact after getting one's 'romance slot' filled, unless the 'romance
slot' winds up empty again, there's more risk.
> My concern was to sound people more experienced than I out on the
> issue of people who claim to be polyamourous, but are really just
> philanderers. Just using poly as a means of getting as much sex as
> possible. Wolves in sheep's clothing if you will.
> If you have means of rooting them out, as you say, then that's what I
> want to know.
If someone wants sex/a 'relationship' without actually having had enough
contact (your milage on enough contact may vary) for you to feel that
such a level of involvement is reasonable, call it a warning flag.
This is, mind, coming from someone who is systemically incapable of
doing the casual sex thing at all; if your species of
openrelationshipness has space for such things, you may have to come up
with a different toggle.
(I'm finding the whole concept of sexual interest sort of amusing,
because in my current emotional soup (soup which I'm finding difficult
to pick out all the ingrediments for cataloging, but in which I believe
I have encountered a wonton) there isn't a sexual aspect towards one
person, specifically because I don't have the data to build up whether
or not I want that. But I can sort of probe around and find the shape
that's 'physical attraction' in the soup -- maybe this is the wonton --
or the wanton -- it's not that it isn't there, or that it is, it's that
it's in the box and I haven't inspected its contents to determine the
state of the cat yet.)
I hope it works out well for you, though, and I hope this helps, or is
at least semicoherent.
- Darkhawk, who just delighted a group of friends
with the phrase 'wanton wonton'
--
Heather Nicoll - Darkhawk - http://aelfhame.net/~darkhawk/
Somehow we find each other through all that masquerade
Somehow we found each other, somehow we have stayed
In a state of grace. - Rush, "Ghost of a Chance"
ring...@usa.net
>>If you have means of rooting them out, as you say, then that's what I
>>order since the issue of polyamoury was basically dumped in my lap by
>>my wife and this other person after I was married. I've been spending
>>a lot of time doubting my own judgement and instincts about things.
>
>Yeah, I know exactly what you mean. If you're asking about how to do a
>poly situation so that it works for all involved, the answer is the same
>-- go slow and think a lot before acting. Only with poly there's another
>piece to the answer: Don't leave someone in the dark. Avoid surprises.
HAHA - Too Late, the joke was on me. Oh well, things really are better
now, and I can say in my own defence that I wasn't springing any of
the surprises or making any lies. Just moved way too fast, and was way
too gullible and dumb.
"Why of course honey, whatever makes you happy will make me happy!"
DUH!
By the time I discovered that there was a word called "No" in the
dictionary it was almost too late. Fortunately the foundations of our
relationship were strong enough to survive the initial setback. Most
of the surprises and lies were perpetuated by the third party, and my
wife was a willing accomplice. She woke up to it when I finally said:
"What are you doing!"
For the most part I'm able to forgive and forget with my wife, but
I'll always be cautious of this other person and those like him. He's
earned himself a perminant place on the veto list Hall of Infamy.
Getting the bride and groom liquored up at his house right after the
wedding, and then hitting on the wife and sneaking passionate gropes
and kisses behind my back. When I agreed to what happened afterwards
what was I thinking!
I don't think that what was going on had anything to do with
polyamoury, but like I said, I'm still sorting things out, and I'm
still looking for books, articles, websites, etc... that could help.
Aahz Maruch
>
>In particular I'm thinking of someone who has a habit of moving on
>vulnerable partners in damaged relationships. What I need is some
>advise on what sort of tactics those people use, and what the warning
>signs of such behavior are.
This is far from any sort of guarantee, because there are good reasons
to insist on privacy, but from what I've seen most manipulators make a
big point of secrecy. So the primary warning signs from my POV have to
do with detecting different information given to different people and/or
concealing important information.
--
--- Aahz (Copyright 2000 by aa...@netcom.com)
Androgynous poly kinky vanilla queer het <*> http://www.rahul.net/aahz/
Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6
"The only problem with Microsoft is they just have no taste." --Steve Jobs
(From _Triumph of the Nerds_ PBS special)
Angi Long
> Does anyone have any experience with people forcing themselves into a
> monogamous relationship, and using polyamoury as a justification for
> putting the moves on one member of a stated monogamous relationship?
> any advise on how to protect yourself and your partners from people
> who intrude on committed relationships with poor intentions.
>
> vulnerable partners in damaged relationships. What I need is some
> advise on what sort of tactics those people use, and what the warning
> signs of such behavior are.
> In effect, this would be someone who "talks the talk", but doesn't
> "walk the walk". A person more interested in striking up a sexual
> relationship with anyone without regard for the damage that it might
> cause to them or their primary relationship.
I believe I've been perceived as such a nasty person in the past. The
problem, of course, is that the people doing the perceiving never had
full information -- they never knew firsthand, for example, what I was
told in private by the person I was involved with.
If I ever venture out into contact with human beings again (other
than my husband), I think I'll start keeping a tape recorder under my
bed!
Anyway, I only say this to give you a little perspective. Sometimes
things are not as they seem.
> How much lying is too much? How do you guard against being lied to,
> and how do you pick out the difference between lies and honest
> mistakes?
I wish I knew. If you figure it out, tell me, okay?
-- Angi Long of House Windstalker
LK
wrote:
><ring...@usa.net> wrote:
>
>> How much lying is too much? How do you guard against being lied to,
>> and how do you pick out the difference between lies and honest
>> mistakes?
>
>I wish I knew. If you figure it out, tell me, okay?
Sort of piggyback here:
Yesterday I encountered a brilliant example of the difference between
dealing with a manipulator and someone who hurt unintentionally.
F was trying to make an anology in casual conversation--but following
an intense discussion about privacy and what makes people tick--by
handing me a steak knife and asking if I'd willingly give it back to F
and allow F to hold it to my throat. Would I willingly do that?
Nanoseconds speed, I went through a couple senarios of saying "no" and
saying "yes" and the repercussions of each of those answers for me and
for F.
One is of distrust and saying "no way" and F's possible
judgement of that I will never be _capable_ of trusting F.
(That's protecting F's feelings at possibly large cost to me: how much
of my phsycial emotional safety do I gamble on making F feel
trustworthy? Does F have an ulterior motive to harm me? Or a
_strong_ need for me to prove trust by putting my physical and
emotional safety in F's hands. Is F on the verge of flipping out
because of too much stress or another reason?)
Another answer is calmly saying "yes" and F's possible pleased
acceptance, or F's wonderment at me saying "yes," or F freaking out
because F doesn't want that power over me and wondering if I was
playing a headgame with zir, or F worrying I was role-playing
surrender just to be a good sport? (Again protecting F and, in
balance, at what cost/benefit to me?)
In both answers I was focused on F's role and mental state. That's
the main tool of manipulators--gettting you to focus on their
requirements and putting their "need" above your safety, your
interests, and your sensibility. And if you are a particular type of
person, or you place high value or high need on maintaining or
developing a relationship with the manipulator, then you make yourself
easy game (i.e., an easy catch or trap like in animal hunting).
BUT there was a huge unanswered question in my mind: "Why are you
doing this?" Why is F asking me this?
I needed to know that answer(s) before making a decision. So I chose
a third course of action: I put the knife on a counter just out of
F's reach and I tried to ask to ask the question. But I couldn't
because the knife and F's question triggered memories and associations
with my abusive first husband. I couldn't form the question and I
secumbed to a panic attack, becoming speechless and a blank mind. And
again within nanonseconds the terrifiying query formed: Was F's
original question a test? Why a test? What right does F have to
even consider testing me? Beyond a question of power over of me, what
was the goal?
Since I couldn't formulate the questions, I said to F, "I will not
play this game. I need to leave. I need to collect myself before I
can talk." As I turned, F's exclamation indicated zir understood a
boundary had been crossed in the wrong way. I left the room and
immediately started crying for a few moments--great emotional
release-- and sat down to sort the memories from the current
situation.... I was shaken. We talked and wasn't until a couple hours
later--we didn't spend all that time talking, chores and things-- that
I put into words part of what happened. And it wasn't easy to say
how deep and...well I questioned whether, I had made a huge mistake
in trusting F. I wasn't devastated but _very_ unsettled. --Simply
having the courage to _ask_ myself, to _consider_ that I had made a
huge mistake was hard, was scary and I did not want to face wondering
what clues I had missed that would have warned me away.
That courage, that leap to ask if it was a mistake is what cleared the
path and I was able to sort what was present and what was near
flashback. There were no clues because there was no ulterior motive.
F had made a poor choice in demostrating the analogy. It was mistake,
not another trick or prod to go in a particular direction for F's own
benefit and my detrement.
A manpulitive person, M for short, would have focused on my
"inability" to make a decision about the original question, about
giving someone a metaphorical knife to use against myself, i.e.,
sharing initimacy and vulnerabilites, then getting threatened or
backstabbed.
M may profusely apologize for crossing a boundary or making a mistake,
but the focus of the apology would be the M's feelings and the
consquences of M's behavior on M's status rather than my feelings. A
manipulator may even "beg" or demand forgivenes before I felt ready or
before I even had a chance to process how I felt. Thus instead of
making sure I was all right and healing from the problem, M would push
ahead and onto M's next goal or next little victory in getting M's ego
and needs fed.
F never pushed for forgiveness and never asked for it. F's concerned
was my state. F knew we could get back on topic later, because the
privacy issue is important to us both, but pushing for agreement in
the middle of this crisis would cause harm to me and to the "us" part.
F knows verbal forgiveness is nothing. Forgiveness is earned and
shown interactive behavior and living the role of people who have
earned their place with each other.
....So perhaps the above breakdown can provide some tools and
perspective into mistakes vs manipulation and how to defend and end
the destructive dance before the band stops playing.
LK
Angi Long
> Yesterday I encountered a brilliant example of the difference between
> dealing with a manipulator and someone who hurt unintentionally.
[example snipped -- it's long, please read original post]
> ....So perhaps the above breakdown can provide some tools and
> perspective into mistakes vs manipulation and how to defend and end
> the destructive dance before the band stops playing.
I don't think I understood much from your example, I'm afraid. I
don't think I clearly see the difference between how F behaved and
how a manipulator would behave.
What I'm trying to see here is how to not come off as a manipulator.
For example, what's the difference between negotiating for your own
needs, and "manipulating?" Why do my actions get labeled "manipula-
tive," when to me they look identical to what, in others, gets called
"good communication" and "honesty" and "negotiation?"
I think it doesn't help that I can't see "manipulation" as, per se,
a bad thing. Of course I want to "manipulate" my environment, my
relationships, etc., such that they'll be good for me -- doesn't
everyone? Isn't that what negotiation is about? Isn't that the
purpose of expressing one's feelings in the first place? Aren't we
*supposed* to "manipulate?" I don't really know what other people
mean by "manipulation" in a negative sense -- when applied to me,
it seems to mean "asking for what one needs or wants or in any way
taking one's own needs or wants into account during negotiations."
Say, for example, that there's an issue, X, which I feel strongly
enough about that I feel I must end the relationship if X goes on.
If I *say* that, then I'm called a "maniplator." Why? What else
am I *supposed* to do? Live with X without saying anything, when
it is making me miserable? Just end the relationship with an af-
ter-the-fact explanation (or no explanation), rather than giving
the explanation first and asking whether the other person would
rather stop X or end the relationship? It doesn't seem right to
me to just leave on the assumption that they'd rather not stop X,
without even asking.
If I say how hurt I am that somebody keeps breaking dates with me
and breaking promises, then I'm called "manipulative" -- I'm try-
ing to "manipulate" them into keeping their dates and promises.
I don't get it. Why is it wrong to express my feelings when
someone is doing something like that, or wrong to ask them to
stop? What is the alternative -- what am I *supposed* to do?
Or if I start a relationship saying "I need X, Y, and Z in a re-
lationship, so before this starts, I need to know whether you
want and can give me X, Y, and Z. Can you?" That gets called
"manipulative." I thought it was just honest negotiation. I
thought that's what it was called when other people did this
kind of thing. So why does it get called "manipulative" when I
do the same thing?
I used to think the people crying "manipulation" were just un-
reasonable, but it's happened too often, so either a lot of
people are pretty unreasonable, or I'm doing something wrong.
Unfortunately it might be something I'm just not capable of
perceiving, so I may never be able to fix it -- but I'm still
driven to *try*.
Leslie
[re LK's post:]
=I don't think I understood much from your example, I'm afraid. I
=don't think I clearly see the difference between how F behaved and
=how a manipulator would behave.
Oh. Damn. I see a whopping big difference. Much is revealed in
the *subsequent* behaviours, in the processing of LK's upset. F wasn't
pushy or demanding or, above all, *self-centeredly selfish* in zir
reaction to LK's reaction. F tried hard to give LK what LK needed. M, on
the other hand, even though LK might've of been having a serious emotional
episode, would turn it around to be 'all about M.' F was supportive and
giving, M was selfish and taking. With a manipulator, somehow, someway,
things always seem to end up being resolved just the way the manipulator
wanted it to be, *regardless* of the upset/hurt/anger of the other person.
A manipulator tends to 'steamroll' others, or, in mirror-opposite fashion,
work 'behind the scenes' with carefully crafted small, subtle 'zingers.'
Hm, have you ever sat down and worked up a list of 'supportive behaviours'
versus 'abusive behaviours'? I mean, those things are *opposites*, one
would think it shouldn't be THAT hard to distinguish between the two
categories? (Allowing for personal, unique definitions of supportive
and abusive where needed.)
Some people are unconscious manipulators; they're just running on
autopilot, on knee-jerk emotional reactions. Some *others* though
do it deliberately and knowingly, and are therefore Really Evil.
*Both* ought to be avoided as much as possible, because even if
the first type doesn't *mean* to be abusive, so what? Will you
join the ranks of women who say 'he doesn't mean to hit me, he's
just drunk....' -- ?
=What I'm trying to see here is how to not come off as a manipulator.
I sincerely abhor the thought of being seen as 'playing games' or
manipulating, myself, though I don't think anyone has ever accused
me of doing so.
=For example, what's the difference between negotiating for your own
=needs, and "manipulating?" Why do my actions get labeled "manipula-
=tive," when to me they look identical to what, in others, gets called
="good communication" and "honesty" and "negotiation?"
*ouch* One possibility is, you were being emotionally abused by a real
pro at emotional abuse -- ? (Not to mention manipulated by guilt.)
Further down, you mention this has happened to you more than once, so it
'must be you.' Horsefeathers. Perhaps you're not a good judge of
character, and so have tended too often to have chosen to be involved
with people with abusive tendencies? And if you stuck with the same type
of abuse, well, it would explain this consistency you've seen.
*IF*, if, the 'fault' for this does lie in the 'delivery' of your
negotiating (ie, tone of voice 'isn't right,' body-language is
'incorrect and contradictory'), then I could understand if there was
an initial period of confusion and misunderstandings between you and
a partner. HOWEVER, I would *expect* that if a partner was
communicating with you *in good faith* (as you yourself were), then
that person would work to understand your 'quirks' and to gain the
ability to translate you. A person who would, AFTER your explanations,
accuse you of lying, or of being dishonest, or of 'manipulating,' when
you'd swear on the holy book of your choice that you were being as
truthful honest and sincere as you knew how to be -- well, I can't think
of any reason why you'd WANT a person like that for a partner, seeing as
how they aren't even *trying* to understand you.
=I think it doesn't help that I can't see "manipulation" as, per se,
=a bad thing. Of course I want to "manipulate" my environment, my
=relationships, etc., such that they'll be good for me -- doesn't
=everyone?
Well, no. :) One manipulates *things*, not _people_. The word
'manipulation' has negative connotations in relation to people. It
implies an action on the order of 'pulling a puppet's strings.' It can
imply things such as outright emotional blackmail (laying heavy guilt
trips on others is a popular favorite). My Roget's lists a 'bad'
synonym: 'control', and a couple of good ones: 'influence,' and 'manage.'
It's considered OK to 'manage' people (well, it DOES depend on one's
motives and methods, otherwise managing _becomes_ manipulation, if
you can see my point, which is vague), though IMO I think one would
want to be very wary of coming off as 'humoring' a person or
patronizing them; and if you can't (aren't allowed to try to) influence a
*partner*....eesh.
=Isn't that what negotiation is about? Isn't that the
=purpose of expressing one's feelings in the first place? Aren't we
=*supposed* to "manipulate?" I don't really know what other people
=mean by "manipulation" in a negative sense -- when applied to me,
=it seems to mean "asking for what one needs or wants or in any way
=taking one's own needs or wants into account during negotiations."
It depends, I believe, on the *spirit behind the words*. One who is
speaking honestly, in good faith, is negotiating; one who is making
selfish, self-centered, 'my way OR ELSE,' (if you REALLY loved me,
you would....) threats is manipulating. One is emotionally mature
behaviour, the other puts one in mind of whiny, tantrum-throwing
four-year-olds.
You have a problem reading 'tone of voice' and body language, Angi,
yes? Then yeah, you could easily have a big problem trying to
analyze another person's 'good faith' quotient (or trying to analyze
how you come across. I suggest video tape, lots of it. Practice
and watch yourself, practice and watch, and have some good friends/
people who know you well help you to analyze yourself. You point
to things and say 'I meant/was feeling X here' and see if the others
say something like 'oh dear, I could've sworn you meant Z!' or not...).
=If I say how hurt I am that somebody keeps breaking dates with me
=and breaking promises, then I'm called "manipulative" -- I'm try-
=ing to "manipulate" them into keeping their dates and promises.
=I don't get it.
Zie's an [expletive deleted]^3? Just a shot in the dark. (Breaks
dates, breaks promises that you had every right and reason to expect
would be honored, and then makes *YOU* feel guilty because *HE*
HURT YOU?! Dear God Almighty.)
=Why is it wrong to express my feelings when someone is doing something
=like that, or wrong to ask them to stop?
If he led you to believe that your wants and needs were high up on
his priority list, and you acted on that belief, you were not wrong,
(even if it did turn out that you rated a lot lower than you thought).
If he wasn't capable of taking responsibility for the consequences
of his actions, that should have been a BIG danger sign.
It would only be wrong if you had a prior agreement that he would be
allowed to treat you like dirt, otherwise, it is NOT wrong. Not not not.
I tell you three times.
= What is the alternative -- what am I *supposed* to do?
Stop obsessing over the behaviour of manipulators and start listening
to people whose judgement you respect and admire and whom you can
turn to for *accurate* evaluations of other peoples' characters
(and your own)?
=Or if I start a relationship saying "I need X, Y, and Z in a re-
=lationship, so before this starts, I need to know whether you
=want and can give me X, Y, and Z. Can you?" That gets called
="manipulative." I thought it was just honest negotiation. I
=thought that's what it was called when other people did this
=kind of thing. So why does it get called "manipulative" when I
=do the same thing?
Can you give us a rough estimate of the emotional maturity and
stability of the person who said this? Of their relative intelligence
and of their relative level of self-awareness? I have concluded that
'immature, unstable, and un-self-aware' are big STOP NOW red flags for me,
because I just don't have the emotional energy to deal with all that
'high-maintenance' stuff.
=I used to think the people crying "manipulation" were just un-
=reasonable, but it's happened too often,
Define 'too often.' And it's still a vanishingly *small* sample set.
= so either a lot of
=people are pretty unreasonable,
That'ud be my guess, yes. Or that you have an unfortunate talent for
attracting immature types of that particular stripe? I don't care
'how often,' I want to know how *perceptive* and *honest* these
people were/are. If they're possessed of good character, or whether
they're manipulative immature selfish assholes, because the
run-of-the-mill MISA doesn't come with a sign on his forhead
announcing the fact.
=or I'm doing something wrong.
=Unfortunately it might be something I'm just not capable of
=perceiving, so I may never be able to fix it -- but I'm still
=driven to *try*.
*hug* if you want one. *IF* this is a problem inherent in you,
which I seriously doubt, and if it does turn out to be something
you can't fix, you can still overcome it -- *if* your partner
is willing to work with you on it -- by you explaining this very
thing up front. Like, 'look, I may be paranoid by this point,
but, I really am being honest and sincere but I'm afraid it'll
come out sounding like manipulation, so could you please bear
with me if it *does* come out sounding wrong? I really am doing
my darnedest to negotiate in good faith.' (If they don't believe
you, drop 'em like a red-hot rivet.)
Leslie.
--
* Spider Robinson info & alt.callahans FAQs: <http://www.vex.net/~leslie> *
** "If we couldn't laugh, we would all go insane." -- J. Buffett **
*** New to Usenet? Get the FAQS: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/ ***
**** If you love any of your rights, defend all of them. ****
Angi Long
> Angi Long spake thusly:
> [re LK's post:]
> =I don't think I understood much from your example, I'm afraid. I
> =don't think I clearly see the difference between how F behaved and
> =how a manipulator would behave.
> Oh. Damn. I see a whopping big difference. Much is revealed in
> the *subsequent* behaviours, in the processing of LK's upset. F wasn't
> pushy or demanding or, above all, *self-centeredly selfish* in zir
> reaction to LK's reaction. F tried hard to give LK what LK needed. M, on
> the other hand, even though LK might've of been having a serious emotional
> episode, would turn it around to be 'all about M.' F was supportive and
> giving, M was selfish and taking.
This is too vague for me. What does it *mean* for someone to "turn
something around to be all about them?" What does that look like?
What mekes something appear "self-centeredly selfish?" What if I'm
having a problem, something is bothering me, and I bring that up...
of course what I'm talking about will be "all about me," my feelings,
my problem. Is that manipulative? When is it okay to bring your own
feelings into something, and when is it not?
> With a manipulator, somehow, someway,
> things always seem to end up being resolved just the way the manipulator
> wanted it to be, *regardless* of the upset/hurt/anger of the other person.
> A manipulator tends to 'steamroll' others, or, in mirror-opposite fashion,
> work 'behind the scenes' with carefully crafted small, subtle 'zingers.'
Colorful phrases, but I don't really understand what they mean in
terms of concrete examples of real actions. How can things be con-
sidered "resolved" if one person is still s upset/hurt/angry? What
if the way the person wanted it to be was "whatever way gets every-
one happy" or "any way, as long as it's within my bottom-line boun-
daries and everyone else's?"
> Hm, have you ever sat down and worked up a list of 'supportive behaviours'
> versus 'abusive behaviours'? I mean, those things are *opposites*, one
> would think it shouldn't be THAT hard to distinguish between the two
> categories? (Allowing for personal, unique definitions of supportive
> and abusive where needed.)
It doesn't seem possible, because the things that feel supportive
and abusive to me don't seem to be the same, in a lot of cases, as
the things which feel that way to other people, and other people
don't all want the same things as each other, either, so I don't
see how such a list could even be made. For example, if someone
is crying in public, for some people the supportive thing to do is
to pay them a lot of attention and give active support, and the
abusive thing to do would be to ignore them. But for others, the
supportive thing to do is ignore them, help them preserve "face,"
avoid embarassing them by drawing any attention to it, and the
abusive thing would be to draw attention to it.
And does this have anything to do with manipulation?
> Some people are unconscious manipulators; they're just running on
> autopilot, on knee-jerk emotional reactions. Some *others* though
> do it deliberately and knowingly, and are therefore Really Evil.
> *Both* ought to be avoided as much as possible, because even if
> the first type doesn't *mean* to be abusive, so what? Will you
> join the ranks of women who say 'he doesn't mean to hit me, he's
> just drunk....' -- ?
No, but I might like to be the one who teaches the person who
abuses accidentally how to avoid that, if it's possible.
> I sincerely abhor the thought of being seen as 'playing games' or
> manipulating, myself, though I don't think anyone has ever accused
> me of doing so.
"Playing games" is another one I hear a lot. I don't know what it
means. It seems to minimize things that are important to me, by
reducing them to "games."
> =For example, what's the difference between negotiating for your own
> =needs, and "manipulating?" Why do my actions get labeled "manipula-
> =tive," when to me they look identical to what, in others, gets called
> ="good communication" and "honesty" and "negotiation?"
> *ouch* One possibility is, you were being emotionally abused by a real
> pro at emotional abuse -- ? (Not to mention manipulated by guilt.)
> Further down, you mention this has happened to you more than once, so it
> 'must be you.' Horsefeathers. Perhaps you're not a good judge of
> character, and so have tended too often to have chosen to be involved
> with people with abusive tendencies? And if you stuck with the same type
> of abuse, well, it would explain this consistency you've seen.
Well, there is a truth there -- I am a lousy judge of character; I
trust everyone, I believe everything everyone says about themselves.
Now I know I shouldn't, but I don't have any way to know which things
to believe and which things not to -- I don't have a lie detector.
But this theory doesn't hold up, because the people who have called
me "manipulative" have been people with the best reputations among
their communities, well-liked and considered by many others to be
good and honest and not abusive.
There is a phenomenon I've recently heard people talk about, and
heard some people describe this who had some experiences parallel
to my own. The theory is that a lot of people can instinctively
"smell" weaknesses, and then they instinctively turn on the weak
person, showing them an abusive side that they would never show
anyone else. It makes sense, in that it parallels animal behavior.
> *IF*, if, the 'fault' for this does lie in the 'delivery' of your
> negotiating (ie, tone of voice 'isn't right,' body-language is
> 'incorrect and contradictory'), then I could understand if there was
> an initial period of confusion and misunderstandings between you and
> a partner. HOWEVER, I would *expect* that if a partner was
> communicating with you *in good faith* (as you yourself were), then
> that person would work to understand your 'quirks' and to gain the
> ability to translate you. A person who would, AFTER your explanations,
> accuse you of lying, or of being dishonest, or of 'manipulating,' when
> you'd swear on the holy book of your choice that you were being as
> truthful honest and sincere as you knew how to be -- well, I can't think
> of any reason why you'd WANT a person like that for a partner, seeing as
> how they aren't even *trying* to understand you.
I wouldn't. But I have made the mistake of being willing to
accept such a person as a partner-of-a-partner. And I have
found myself surrounded by entire communities of such people
(I leave those communities, but I can't keep doing that for-
ever).
Understand that it has not been my *partners* who have called
me "manipulative" when they were my partners. My partners
have (at least as far as they ever let me know) trusted my
sincerity, until someone -- other partner, friend(s) -- even-
tually convinced them otherwise, either resulting in, or just
after, the end of the relationship.
Current example: my last ex's wife accuses me of "manipula-
ting" him regarding things about our child. She says I "get
my way" by "taking advantage of" his "fear of confrontation."
The last thing that apparently prompted her to say this was
when I told him I would need our daughter with me for my
handfasting (so we would need to rearrange the schedule that
weekend). She said I manipulated him "all the time," but
this is the first time (the child is three) that I have ever
used language in requesting a change in schedule which indi-
cated that I didn't really consider what I was asking for to
be negotiable -- every other time, I have been very careful
to ask whether a change or swap would be okay, to say "only
if it's okay," "it's not really vital, only if it's conveni-
ent for you," etc.
Apparently she thinks that he is incapable of saying "no" to
anything, so it's wrong to ever ask him for anything, no mat-
ter how the asking is done. I think that's a pretty unreason-
able stand. And it wouldn't bother me much, if it was *only*
her. But many members of the community we used to share have
also called me "manipulative" and said I "manipulated" this
man when he was my partner. I don't know that I'd say the
"entire" community -- there may have been a few hold-outs --
but certainly enough of the best-respected leader-people that
I was forced out of that community when that relationship
ended.
> =I think it doesn't help that I can't see "manipulation" as, per se,
> =a bad thing. Of course I want to "manipulate" my environment, my
> =relationships, etc., such that they'll be good for me -- doesn't
> =everyone?
> Well, no. :) One manipulates *things*, not _people_.
I think that's why I said "environment" and "relationships" ra-
ther than "people."
> The word
> 'manipulation' has negative connotations in relation to people. It
> implies an action on the order of 'pulling a puppet's strings.'
I think what I was getting at is that "manipulate" is itself a
neutral thing or even a good thing. But people seem to use the
word now to mean "manipulate without [enough] regard for others."
I think lack of regard is wrong, but manipulation itself is not.
But because they use the word "manipulation," it seems like they
come to think of *any* attempt to influence a situation for one's
own benefit as wrong, even when that attempt may include much
consideration for others. Is this making sense, or am I talking
in circles?
> It can
> imply things such as outright emotional blackmail (laying heavy guilt
> trips on others is a popular favorite).
Yeah, laying guilt trips is a bad thing -- I see this in my twelve
year old when she tries to guilt her little sister into hugging
her with the "you don't love me, I'm going to cry" line. The
wrong thing here as I see it is that the hug is really *not* worth
the feelings the older girl is putting on to try to get the little
one to hug her. It's a fake; she is exaggerating just to try to
control. But if the feelings were *real*, not exaggerated, I
don't think it would be wrong. It's not wrong to say "ow, you
stepped on my toe, that really hurts, please don't do it again,"
in order to try to get someone to stop stepping on your toe. It's
*right* to explain your feelings that way, so they can be able to
predict and consider your feelings in the future. Isn't it? Yes,
it does work, at least in part, by making the person feel "guilty."
They avoid stepping on your toe in the future because they don't
want to feel guilty. They are "manipulated" into avoiding your
toe. But I don't think this is wrong.
But I've been accused of "laying guilt trips" and "manipulation"
when I've expressed my very real, not exaggerated, feelings, and
asked someone to stop doing something that was hurting me. I wish
I knew why.
> =Isn't that what negotiation is about? Isn't that the
> =purpose of expressing one's feelings in the first place? Aren't we
> =*supposed* to "manipulate?" I don't really know what other people
> =mean by "manipulation" in a negative sense -- when applied to me,
> =it seems to mean "asking for what one needs or wants or in any way
> =taking one's own needs or wants into account during negotiations."
> It depends, I believe, on the *spirit behind the words*. One who is
> speaking honestly, in good faith, is negotiating; one who is making
> selfish, self-centered, 'my way OR ELSE,' (if you REALLY loved me,
> you would....) threats is manipulating. One is emotionally mature
> behaviour, the other puts one in mind of whiny, tantrum-throwing
> four-year-olds.
The line is so fuzzy, though, how do you tell where it is? What if
"my way or else (the relationship ends)" is the simple truth? "If
you loved me, you would..." sounds bad, but what if you're talking
about some genuinely abusive behavior -- how else do you say "the
way you have been treating me is not consistent with 'love?'"
(Which, rephrased slightly, is "if you loved me, you wouldn't abuse
me.") (Note: I don't define "love" as just an emotion -- I think
"love" is more accurately defined as "caring to the extent that one
has a willingness to *do* something, undertake some level of work,
some level of sacrifice, for the other person.")
Actually I recently got some insight into something that sheds some
light on this and the "guilt trip" issue. I seem to have emotions
that are not exactly binary, but have few gradations. I am either
not bothered by something, a little bothered... or so bothered I
can think of nothing else. I am either not sad, a little sad, or
suicidal. I either don't like someone, I like them a little, or
I'm "ass over elbows" for them. My emotions tend to come in ex-
tremes. It occurred to me that this could sometimes lead to people
thinking I'm exaggerating my feelings to try to "manipulate," when
in fact I'm being totally honest about the depth of my feelings.
> You have a problem reading 'tone of voice' and body language, Angi,
> yes?
I think I miss some nuances, at least, yes.
> Then yeah, you could easily have a big problem trying to
> analyze another person's 'good faith' quotient (or trying to analyze
> how you come across. I suggest video tape, lots of it. Practice
> and watch yourself, practice and watch, and have some good friends/
> people who know you well help you to analyze yourself. You point
> to things and say 'I meant/was feeling X here' and see if the others
> say something like 'oh dear, I could've sworn you meant Z!' or not...).
Interesting exercise. I'm not sure exactly how it would work,
though. It reminds me of another exercise someone suggested a
while back: to learn to read body language better, I should
watch t.v. with the sound off, and try to guess what people on
screen were feeling. Maybe record shows, watch them with the
sound off making guesses, then play them back with the sound.
The problem is, I can't see how playing them back with sound
is supposed to give me any means to judge the accuracy of my
guesses. I'm very capable of making guesses, but I can make
several guesses about the same situation and have no idea
which one is actually right. Especially when it comes to
guessing not just what the emotional state is, but what's
*causing* the emotional state.
> =Or if I start a relationship saying "I need X, Y, and Z in a re-
> =lationship, so before this starts, I need to know whether you
> =want and can give me X, Y, and Z. Can you?" That gets called
> ="manipulative." I thought it was just honest negotiation. I
> =thought that's what it was called when other people did this
> =kind of thing. So why does it get called "manipulative" when I
> =do the same thing?
> Can you give us a rough estimate of the emotional maturity and
> stability of the person who said this? Of their relative intelligence
> and of their relative level of self-awareness?
In my opinion, or in the opinion of all their friends? :)
> *hug* if you want one. *IF* this is a problem inherent in you,
> which I seriously doubt, and if it does turn out to be something
> you can't fix, you can still overcome it -- *if* your partner
> is willing to work with you on it -- by you explaining this very
> thing up front. Like, 'look, I may be paranoid by this point,
> but, I really am being honest and sincere but I'm afraid it'll
> come out sounding like manipulation, so could you please bear
> with me if it *does* come out sounding wrong? I really am doing
> my darnedest to negotiate in good faith.' (If they don't believe
> you, drop 'em like a red-hot rivet.)
Thanks. Fortunately, I don't have this problem with my husband
-- I don't think he's ever doubted my sincerity or good intentions.
I'm just afraid of problems happening again if/when we try to be-
come a real part of any community or group (we've been pretty re-
clusive the past couple years), or I try to make more friends, or
even get involved in another relationship.
Stef Maruch
>what's the difference between negotiating for your own
>needs, and "manipulating?"
Manipulating generally has the connotation of using underhanded tactics
to get away with something.
>Why do my actions get labeled "manipula-
>tive," when to me they look identical to what, in others, gets called
>"good communication" and "honesty" and "negotiation?"
Maybe because you are missing some of what other people read into the
connotations of your actions, or maybe because the people who are
calling your actions manipulative and others' actions "good
communication" are feeling defensive, or are being manipulative toward
you.
>I think it doesn't help that I can't see "manipulation" as, per se,
>a bad thing.
I see your point if you just look at the base meaning of the word. But
"manipulation" usually has the *connotation* of changing your
environment or getting people to do what you want in a tricky or
underhanded way.
Just trying to negotiate a change is not manipulative in the negative
connotation of the word, if you don't try to call up guilt in someone in
order to get your way, or if you don't lie or withhold information in
order to get your way.
>Of course I want to "manipulate" my environment, my
>relationships, etc., such that they'll be good for me -- doesn't
>everyone?
I think most people would substitute a more neutral word in the above
sentence: "set up" for example. I don't want to use underhanded and
untruthful methods to set up my environment / relationships so they'll
be good for me.
>Aren't we
>*supposed* to "manipulate?" I don't really know what other people
>mean by "manipulation" in a negative sense -- when applied to me,
>it seems to mean "asking for what one needs or wants or in any way
>taking one's own needs or wants into account during negotiations."
Here is an example of manipulation (in a negative sense) as opposed to
honestly asking for what one wants: When the Nazis[1] wanted a group of
Jews to get on the train to Auschwitz, instead of telling them the truth
and saying "We want you to get on this train so we can take you to
Auschwitz and gas most of you and put the rest in a labor camp until
they starve to death," they would lie and tell the Jews that they were
being relocated or going for some special work in the archives.
>Say, for example, that there's an issue, X, which I feel strongly
>enough about that I feel I must end the relationship if X goes on.
>If I *say* that, then I'm called a "maniplator."
Are you called a manipulator every time you say that?
I would call that an ultimatum. Some people feel that ultimatums are
manipulative by definition. I don't, but I think it's best for the
relationship if relationship-killing boundaries are discussed before
potentially-relationship-killing situations are actually occurring.
For example, early in my relationship with my primary I said that if I
were hit nonconsensually, I would probably feel that I should end the
relationship. I wasn't called a manipulator for saying that.
>If I say how hurt I am that somebody keeps breaking dates with me
>and breaking promises, then I'm called "manipulative" -- I'm try-
>ing to "manipulate" them into keeping their dates and promises.
>I don't get it. Why is it wrong to express my feelings when
>someone is doing something like that, or wrong to ask them to
>stop? What is the alternative -- what am I *supposed* to do?
Again, does this happen every time you say you are hurt that someone
keeps breaking dates and promises with you? Or are you thinking of
specific example(s)?
Of the people you've had such conversations with, how many of them have
called you "manipulative" as a result of such requests? Have any not
done so? For example, have you had any similar conversations with your
handfasted sweetie, and has he called you a manipulator?
I'm asking because sometimes when a person says "you're being
manipulative," it's because they are feeling accused and defensive and
don't want to do what you're asking. In other words, sometimes it's
something more about them than about how you handled the interaction.
On the other hand there may be something about how you ask for things
that invokes guilt feelings or manipulation feelings in a lot of people.
Hazarding a guess based on your Usenet writing style -- sometimes your
posts seem to invoke guilt feelings or stupidity feelings.
This is something that took me a very long time to learn:
If you tell someone you are hurt and ask them to change their behavior,
they are very likely to feel defensive. Defensiveness takes certain
forms; it's also usually temporary, and it's a good idea to recognize
defensiveness and wait until it's dissipated before finalizing a
negotiation. One of the forms is to feel treated unfairly and to call
the other person manipulative or some other negative thing.
If waiting for defensiveness to dissipate doesn't work, some
alternatives are
(1) instead of mentioning your hurt feelings, make a request that
doesn't reference feelings. "I need you to keep dates and promises." The
reason for that is some people hear a statement that references hurt
feelings as underhandedly manipulative.
And yes, unfortunately you can't know which sort of statement a person
prefers until you've had some interactions with them.
(2) to silently revamp your understanding of that person so that you no
longer consider them a person who keeps dates and promises, and then act
accordingly.
>Or if I start a relationship saying "I need X, Y, and Z in a re-
>lationship, so before this starts, I need to know whether you
>want and can give me X, Y, and Z. Can you?" That gets called
>"manipulative."
Always?
>I thought it was just honest negotiation.
I think it's honest negotiation, but in some cases, I might not know
whether I can offer X, Y, and Z. What would you do then?
[doesn't count as a Godwin invocation!]
--
Stef ** rational/scientific/philosophical/mystical/magical/kitty **
** st...@cat-and-dragon.com <*> http://www.bayarea.net/~stef **
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I go for the philosophy of "Be sand, not oil, in the machinery of the
world." -- J. Michael Straczynski
Stef Maruch
>What does it *mean* for someone to "turn
>something around to be all about them?" What does that look like?
It looks like they aren't paying any attention to what the other
people's feelings and needs and wants are.
>What if I'm
>having a problem, something is bothering me, and I bring that up...
>of course what I'm talking about will be "all about me," my feelings,
>my problem. Is that manipulative?
Not necessarily manipulative, but there are better and worse times to
bring up your problem. For an extreme example, if someone is having a
heart attack, it's not a good time to say "Honey, I have a problem: I'd
like you to do the dishes more often." For a less extreme example, let's
say your problem is something that the other person is sensitive about.
As you're talking about your problem, the other person is starting to
feel upset and less able to talk rationally about your problem. If zie
says "I'm getting upset and can't continue talking about this right
now," then if you continue talking about it, it will look like you don't
care about the other person's needs.
(But if that happens every time you bring up the problem, then the other
person may be behaving manipulatively and shutting down the conversation
to avoid dealing with your problem. So it's sometimes tricky to figure
out what's going on, and who's being "more selfish.")
>When is it okay to bring your own
>feelings into something, and when is it not?
When the other person indicates it's OK. You might ask them, or you
might watch their body language. (Watching body language usually only
works with people you already know pretty well.)
>Current example: my last ex's wife accuses me of "manipula-
>ting" him regarding things about our child. She says I "get
>my way" by "taking advantage of" his "fear of confrontation."
I think your last ex's wife should be holding your ex responsible for
his fear of confrontation, not holding you responsible for it. That's
true regardless of whether you are deliberately manipulating him or not.
(I think you're not, for what it's worth.)
>I think lack of regard is wrong, but manipulation itself is not.
>But because they use the word "manipulation," it seems like they
>come to think of *any* attempt to influence a situation for one's
>own benefit as wrong, even when that attempt may include much
>consideration for others.
I believe you're right -- a lot of people do think that way.
>It's *right* to explain your feelings that way, so they can be able to
>predict and consider your feelings in the future. Isn't it?
I think it's one way of handling requests, especially requests that you
want people close to you to remember about. But it's not a good idea to
assume that everyone, even strangers or people who are in the midst of
heart attacks, are going to have the mental bandwidth to hear about your
feelings. So sometimes you have to consider whether the request is a
good idea at all, and sometimes you have to consider whether a request
without a "feelings" explanation might be better.
>Yes, it does work, at least in part, by making the person feel "guilty."
Umm. Not necessarily. If I step on someone's toe accidentally, I don't
feel guilty about it, because it was an accident. I only feel guilty
about things I believe I should legitimately have known to handle
differently.
>They avoid stepping on your toe in the future because they don't
>want to feel guilty. They are "manipulated" into avoiding your
>toe.
I don't agree with this use of "manipulated," because as I said in
another post, I think manipulation usually has a negative connotation of
underhanded or lying ways of getting something to happen. If I tried to
get people to avoid my toes by untruthfully saying "I have cancer and if
you step on my toe it will bleed for hours," that would be manipulative.
Saying simply "That hurts, please don't," is not manipulative, it's just
true.
>But I don't think this is wrong.
I don't think it's morally or ethically wrong to make requests based on
truthful information. However, sometimes it's a bad idea (e.g. if
the person you're making a request of is having a heart attack).
>But I've been accused of "laying guilt trips" and "manipulation"
>when I've expressed my very real, not exaggerated, feelings, and
>asked someone to stop doing something that was hurting me. I wish
>I knew why.
Possibilities:
(1) Everybody gets accused of that sometimes. So some of the time it was
probably just because your comments made someone feel defensive (which
is normal) and they came out with "you're laying a guilt trip" as their
defensive reaction.
(2) You may use the "request by expressing feelings" method more often
or in different circumstances than some other people. As I mentioned,
sometimes describing your feelings when making a request is a bad idea.
(3) Some people grow up with a cultural guideline: "Don't make requests
unless they're very important, and don't refuse other people's requests
unless you absolutely have to." If such a person is involved with
someone who feels it's perfectly OK to make requests about relatively
unimportant things, the first person may get resentful and feel there is
a double standard. I have this problem with one of my sweeties. If a
person with this cultural guideline doesn't understand that zir way of
doing requests *is* a cultural guideline (but thinks it's "the only
right way"), zie may feel manipulated by your requests for things that
aren't very important.
>"If
>you loved me, you would..." sounds bad, but what if you're talking
>about some genuinely abusive behavior -- how else do you say "the
>way you have been treating me is not consistent with 'love?'"
I don't say that; I say "X behavior feels abusive to me, and I don't
think I can tolerate its being frequently repeated."
>(Note: I don't define "love" as just an emotion -- I think
>"love" is more accurately defined as "caring to the extent that one
>has a willingness to *do* something, undertake some level of work,
>some level of sacrifice, for the other person.")
That is *part* of my definition of love, but not all of it. However, I
think "love" is a loaded word to a lot of people. Dragging it into a
discussion about requests for specific behavior is likely to cause
defensiveness. So avoiding it when making requests for specific behavior
changes may be a good idea (unless you are deliberately having a
conversation about "what makes me feel loved").
>Actually I recently got some insight into something that sheds some
>light on this and the "guilt trip" issue. I seem to have emotions
>that are not exactly binary, but have few gradations. I am either
>not bothered by something, a little bothered... or so bothered I
>can think of nothing else. I am either not sad, a little sad, or
>suicidal. I either don't like someone, I like them a little, or
>I'm "ass over elbows" for them. My emotions tend to come in ex-
>tremes. It occurred to me that this could sometimes lead to people
>thinking I'm exaggerating my feelings to try to "manipulate," when
>in fact I'm being totally honest about the depth of my feelings.
Yes. I think a lot of adults learn somehow to moderate their extreme
feelings (or it happens by itself, with aging), and tend to view extreme
feelings as childish (or, if they are positive, childlike). So that
might add to the disconnect when you are trying to express very strong
feelings to another adult.
--
Stef ** rational/scientific/philosophical/mystical/magical/kitty **
** st...@cat-and-dragon.com <*> http://www.bayarea.net/~stef **
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
This is not a bootstrap process of stiffening the upper lip and digging
into unwanted independence, as some would have it.
--Mixed metaphor hall of fame
Gwynyth
inside my head for a while, but knew I wanted to comment.
Angi Long <angi...@home.com> wrote:
> "Leslie" <les...@vex.net> wrote:
> > Angi Long spake thusly:
<leaving in prior speakers in case I actually quote them>
> This is too vague for me. What does it *mean* for someone to "turn
> something around to be all about them?" What does that look like?
> What mekes something appear "self-centeredly selfish?" What if I'm
> having a problem, something is bothering me, and I bring that up...
> of course what I'm talking about will be "all about me," my feelings,
> my problem. Is that manipulative? When is it okay to bring your own
> feelings into something, and when is it not?
Part of this, for me, is a question of 'how often does it happen?'
My relationship with my ex-fiance started off reasonably balanced (mind,
this was my first relationship, with not many good models of negotiation
and balance to work from, since my parents kept any negotiation in their
relationships private, and relatively few of my friends in either high
school or college had relationships, functional or not, at that time.
Darkhawk is one of the few exceptions.)
However, about 9 months into our relationship, something changed in him.
I'm not qualified to comment on what I think caused that (I have
guesses, but they are *only* guesses, as said ex-fiance strenuously
refused any kind of professional assistance) but he began a *very* nasty
pattern. I know he did this because he did it to other people besides
me, and because I had friends willing to look at logs of my
conversations with him, and point out exactly hwat he was doing.
What he was doing, pretty much every single time I came to him and said
"Dear, I'd really like some time to talk to you about X, because I'm
feeling scared by it" or "X bad thing happened to me today" or "I'm
worried about X" (even where X was *nothing* relating directly to him or
to our relationship - it could be my being a bit nervous about moving
into my first real apartment and starting my first 'adult' job, it could
be my grandmother being diagnosed with cancer, it could be misjudging a
turn in the car and doing a 180...) within *four* exchanges of
sentences, he'd have flipped the subject to "Poor me, and no one loves
me, and you hate me, and you'd be better off without me." (Or, if I was
lucky, only a subset of that statement).
It honestly *did* take someone pointing it out to me to do that - to the
point I *was* running pretty much every conversation that got more in
depth than "Hi" past someone else, or reading it later myself to see
exactly what he was doing.
Now, my ex-fiance had some pretty major issues about this, and again,
this is *not* normal behavior. It's also a lot more blatant than most
people who pull this stunt (most people have basic decency to wait more
than four sentences, I think), which made it simpler to deal with in
many ways. (It was so over the top it was impossible to ignore, and,
even though I'm remarkably good at taking blame for myself, it really
was something I had problems blaming myself for.)
> > With a manipulator, somehow, someway,
> > things always seem to end up being resolved just the way the manipulator
> > wanted it to be, *regardless* of the upset/hurt/anger of the other person.
> > A manipulator tends to 'steamroll' others, or, in mirror-opposite fashion,
> > work 'behind the scenes' with carefully crafted small, subtle 'zingers.'
>
> Colorful phrases, but I don't really understand what they mean in
> terms of concrete examples of real actions. How can things be con-
> sidered "resolved" if one person is still s upset/hurt/angry? What
> if the way the person wanted it to be was "whatever way gets every-
> one happy" or "any way, as long as it's within my bottom-line boun-
> daries and everyone else's?"
One thing to try and understand about this, is that there *are* people
out there for whom getting their way is resolving the issue. I don't
want to have a romantic/emotionally entangled relationship with someone
who thinks like that ever again, but I know they're out there. (I don't
even particularly want to be friends or interact much with someone who
thinks like that, but that's a bit harder to manage sometimes.)
From my observations, part of this is different tolerance for people
being upset - my family, for example, tends to repress emotional pain to
a very large degree. I've spent the last 6 years learning not to do so
(at least to a small and select group of people) but it took me about 3
years of that 6 to be able to answer "No" when someone I did trust asked
me if I was ok. I'm still fighting with the problem of *telling* someone
when I'm not ok, even though I *know* in every possible way that there
are not only people who want to know that, but who are willing to be
woken up to be told that if that's what it takes.)
*However*, I realise that if I don't tell people things, I can't expect
them to be responsible for the information, so unless I know they've
been told clearly, I don't expect them to react based on that knowledge.
(That's one of the ways I prevent myself being manipulative about this
area. It also helps me drop back to rationality, and explain - I get
teary, but I explain early on in a relationship (once that level of
trust seems likely to be reached) that this is what happens, and please
bear with me for five minutes, and I'll explain, and that I don't hold
someone responsible for things they didn't know and couldn't have known.
My current SO is the first SO I've tried this with, and so far it's
working great.
Back to the different tolerance levels. I *think* that some people grow
up with different expecations of 'if someone's upset, it's still ok to
go ahead and do whatever it was'. I think, at the very least, that
there's a spectrum. I know there are some things my SO does that I'm not
wholeheartedly in favor of, but that I can deal with mild unhappiness or
grumpiness about comfortably - I don't expect to get everything I want
all the time - and he does the same. We do talk about it, and we do talk
more if it gets to a certain point of grumpiness.
<snip. This is Angi>
> > =For example, what's the difference between negotiating for your own
> > =needs, and "manipulating?" Why do my actions get labeled "manipula-
> > =tive," when to me they look identical to what, in others, gets called
> > ="good communication" and "honesty" and "negotiation?"
Part of it for me is *when* it occurs, and *how* it occurs.
Two examples:
I have asthma. I can not cope with anyone who smokes in my living space
(or even, really, anyone smoking outside my living space and then coming
back in. I can deal with it for very short periods of time (maybe up to
a week) but that's about it, and it's not good for me.)
My current SO smokes. Before we got involved, we had a discussion where
I said "This is something I can't change, whether or not I wanted to.
Therefore, if we're going to be romantically involved, I need you to
understand this, and to decide whether or not you can live with this
restriction. If we're going to have a long-term short distance
relationship, that would mean that you'd need to quit smoking, almost
certainly."
My current SO, bless him, is working on that. He's never smoked while
he's visited, he's done his best to air out his apartment last time I
visited (I still had problems, but it was better than it could have
been, and I made it clear I appreciated his efforts). And he understands
that this isn't a preference, this is a need
(about the only real relationship need I have, actually, since I've
found that respect for this one translates into respect for other things
important to me) - that I recognise I'm asking him to give up an
addiction and that that's not inconsequential, but that this is
something I can't be around and continue to be functional.
But I was very up front about it. I also don't nag him about it at all -
I know (because he tells me) that he is still smoking sometimes when at
home. And he also reassures me that if we can get us in the same
country, he will quit by good (if not before then.) It helps that he was
trying to quit beforehand - I'm partly just giving him extra incentive
to succeed.
Another example, this time with my ex-fiance.
He and I hadn't talked for more than a week, due to his work schedule
and some subsequent choices about sleep vs. wakefulness. I asked him
when a good time to talk would be (barring work issues), and he said
Thursday night. On Thursday, I asked him if we could narrow it down a
little more (to when I got home from work, or later in the evening) so I
could plan a few things like cooking dinner and a few things I wanted to
do online (rather than waiting for him to have half an hour free.)
He threw a fit (not at me, but at friends) about this, and accused me of
all sorts of things.
I don't think asking people for scheduling information (when phrased as
"Talking to you is the most important thing I want to do tonight,
because I care about you, and because I'd like your input in some
decisions which might affect you, but I have some other htings I'd like
to do as well, and it would help me if you could give me some idea of
the likely best time for you.") is manipulative. He obviously did.
(Though again, his rationality on such things is .. questionable as
having anything to do with 'normal' behavior or reactions.)
What seems to make the difference for me are the following things:
* Information about exactly how much of this can be negotiated,
presented calmly and moderately, without using an accusatory tone of
voice, phrasings that are accusative, things like that. In the first
example above, this means I sit a prospective romantic attachment down
(if I haven't done it already as part of friendship) and say "Look, this
is stuff I like people I'm around to know:) and do the whole spiel about
what the asthma means to me, what I take for medication, where that
lives, what my attacks so far look like, and that I might, sometime,
need an emergency room or hospitalisation if I get unlucky or misjudge
badly. I make it part of the whole spiel to discuss the smoking issue,
and edging it with other information seems to make it much less of a hot
button.
* Information on how much input I get. I don't particularly mind someone
saying "this is the way things are going to be" so long as they're
upfront about it. I would consider it possibly manipulative if we were
going along doing something else, and then they said "Wait, this is the
new rule" without my input. I would consider it much less manipulative
if they said "Something needs to change, here's my idea, do you have any
others, or any concerns?"
* Time to consider and adapt to the change. I consider it manipulative
if I have to change immediately, or if something's thrust on me without
time to think it through and decide if that's something I can do. It
doesn't need to be *much* time - but I'd consider a day or three a
minimum for most issues, with a follow up conversation at that time. I
would also expect leeway in relation to the depth of changes - if
someone asks me to change a long-term behavior that I've been doing for
years or for my life, I'd expect a period of at least a week to a month
to get that behavior changed enough that someone would notice a
significant change. While I might make changes, I'd expect to slip
somewhat for a little if I'm not thinking clearly (tired, stressed,
upset myself) and that that should not be an all or nothing change.
* The more input I have, the happier I am - that the more I feel in
control of what I'm being asked to do, the easier it is to come to an
agreement. (Like with my SO. I've told him my outright limits. I've left
how he meets those, if he chooses to meet them, substantially up to him.
I've just also made clear the next step if they aren't met.
<more snip>
> Apparently she thinks that he is incapable of saying "no" to
> anything, so it's wrong to ever ask him for anything, no mat-
> ter how the asking is done. I think that's a pretty unreason-
> able stand. And it wouldn't bother me much, if it was *only*
> her. But many members of the community we used to share have
> also called me "manipulative" and said I "manipulated" this
> man when he was my partner. I don't know that I'd say the
> "entire" community -- there may have been a few hold-outs --
> but certainly enough of the best-respected leader-people that
> I was forced out of that community when that relationship
> ended.
For what it's worth: I think that people having adult relationships
should be able to stand up for themselves. If they can't stand up for
themselves, for whatever reason, I think they should take responsibility
for that, and seek neutral ways to convey that information (for example,
I sometimes have an easier time dealing with emotionally loaded material
in writing (email, letter, whatever) where it's much harder in person.
My SO and I prefer to deal with emotionally loaded stuff *at least* on
the phone (since we're only seeing each other every 3 months right now,
waiting up to 3 months to resolve an issue doesn't work too well,
otherwise we'd wait for in-person time)
I do also think it's the other person's responsibility to ask, mind (but
from what you said, you were doing that). And I say this as someone who
*does* have problems saying 'no' to something, or standing up for what I
want and my preferneces. I try *really* hard not to blame that on anyone
else when it's a failing in myself that causes me problems. (I will hold
them accountable for actions that make it unusually hard for me stand up
for my preferences if they say they're trying not to do that, or if
there's something else out of whack between their words and their
actions, but that's a different issue.)
<more snip>
> The line is so fuzzy, though, how do you tell where it is? What if
> "my way or else (the relationship ends)" is the simple truth? "If
> you loved me, you would..." sounds bad, but what if you're talking
> about some genuinely abusive behavior -- how else do you say "the
> way you have been treating me is not consistent with 'love?'"
> (Which, rephrased slightly, is "if you loved me, you wouldn't abuse
> me.") (Note: I don't define "love" as just an emotion -- I think
> "love" is more accurately defined as "caring to the extent that one
> has a willingness to *do* something, undertake some level of work,
> some level of sacrifice, for the other person.")
The one I use is "Dear? Can we talk about something? Lately, something
happened which made me feel hurt. I'm pretty sure that you didn't mean
to do that, so I wanted to talk about it, so you'd know. When <insert
example here: you asked me to do X, you said X, you did Y>, it made me
feel <sad, hurt, isolated, pushed away> because <explanation. Ideally,
the explanation relates to something else in your life, not to something
this person has done. Obviously, that's not always possible.> Can we
figure out some way to avoid this in future?"
Ideally, this conversation happens as soon as I can verbalise the
problem, becuase it *does* show in the way I react to the person in
question, and it's not something I consider nice *or* ethical *or* moral
to leave them hanging and wondering what's wrong.
An example from my own life is "When you said X, I felt pushed away
because that's something <Ex-fiance> did using really similar words.
When he did it, after that, he <did the followings as well>, and it
scares me that that might happen with you. I know you're not him, but
the memories of him are still there, and I know I react less than
rationally to that. Can you help me?"
It's rather roundabout, but it *can* work, so long as the other person
honestly doesn't want to hurt you, and is willing to put a minimal level
of attention into not hurting you.
The basic gist is to say "I feel" rather than "You make me feel" and to
keep the other person's actions purely as a clause "At the time you did
this, I felt...." where the cause and effect are kept sort of separate,
and the cause is somewhat depersonalised. Owning your own reactions and
emotions while not ascribing stuff to them other than the actual words
they used is the other part.
I picked up a book called "Difficult Conversations" which talks about
how to have hard conversations without being manipulative in bad ways
which I'm finding interesting. (the book does assume that the other
person cares about continuing a productive relationship with you, and
most of the techniques won't work with someone who's subconsciously
trying to undermine every bit of the relationship, but it's still
interesting.) (IT's now buried in the pile of books in my bedroom, but I
think the subtitle is "How to have conversations that matter"
> Actually I recently got some insight into something that sheds some
> light on this and the "guilt trip" issue. I seem to have emotions
> that are not exactly binary, but have few gradations. I am either
> not bothered by something, a little bothered... or so bothered I
> can think of nothing else. I am either not sad, a little sad, or
> suicidal. I either don't like someone, I like them a little, or
> I'm "ass over elbows" for them. My emotions tend to come in ex-
> tremes. It occurred to me that this could sometimes lead to people
> thinking I'm exaggerating my feelings to try to "manipulate," when
> in fact I'm being totally honest about the depth of my feelings.
I have the same problem, but the other way - I don't feel most emotions
strongly. I feel maybe the bottom 10% of the spectrum strongly, and the
top 5% - but my 'norm' is pretty darn cheerful (up in the 75% mark on
the scale area) so most people don't notice.
But because I don't have strong preferences, or voice them as being
strong preferences, I've had people accuse me of being manipulative that
way (or of being manipulative on the rare times something hits one of
the 'strong' areas, because they're so unused to seeing me react from
those areas)
So there are other variants on this problem too....
<more snipping>
--
Gwynyth
gwy...@polyamory.org
http://www.polyamory.org/~gwynyth
piranha
Angi Long <angi...@home.com> wrote:
>
>This is too vague for me. What does it *mean* for someone to "turn
>something around to be all about them?" What does that look like?
scenario:
you tell susie (not her real name :-) that you had this great
date with frank (not his real name). you want to gush a bit,
and share your happiness, but susie launches into her own
date with frank, or talks about something else in regard to
frank that involves her, and how important she is to him, etc.
that one is really obvious IMO.
susie might also slyly undercut your joy without being quite
so obvious, by comparing your experiences with frank to hers
with other, more successful, richer, smarter men, which were
naturally ever so much more fascinating, sophisticated, pas-
sionate, etc. this can all be done under the guise of "sha-
ring between girlfriends".
if you ever have a "girlfriend" where everything you start to
talk about ends up in you talking for 5 minutes and she for
5 hours, that's somebody like that. you are just a foil to
her, to display herself against.
>What mekes something appear "self-centeredly selfish?" What if I'm
>having a problem, something is bothering me, and I bring that up...
>of course what I'm talking about will be "all about me," my feelings,
>my problem. Is that manipulative? When is it okay to bring your own
>feelings into something, and when is it not?
if you're bleeding from your aorta, go right ahead, it can be
all about your feelings. otherwise it's IMO a good idea to
take those of others into account. if you're really upset,
a friend ought to let you vent. but if you're really upset
6 out of 7 days, and no matter what happens to your friend,
you find ways to bring the conversation back to your own up-
set, you're susie from the scenario above.
>> With a manipulator, somehow, someway,
>> things always seem to end up being resolved just the way the manipulator
>> wanted it to be, *regardless* of the upset/hurt/anger of the other person.
>> A manipulator tends to 'steamroll' others, or, in mirror-opposite fashion,
>> work 'behind the scenes' with carefully crafted small, subtle 'zingers.'
>
>Colorful phrases, but I don't really understand what they mean in
>terms of concrete examples of real actions. How can things be con-
>sidered "resolved" if one person is still s upset/hurt/angry?
well, i think it's possible even without manipulation -- adre-
naline sticks around for a while.
but manipulative resolution isn't true resolution. it has
just "worked itself out" that the solution is what zie has
wanted, not what you have wanted. this can be hard to spot,
but if you feel a gnawing leftover feeling when you are told
that the other is glad you've resolved something so well,
you have likely not gotten anything much you really wanted,
but you were conned.
i could give examples, but they'd be long, and i am not sure
they would play as well to an audience as they played when
i was in them.
>> Hm, have you ever sat down and worked up a list of 'supportive behaviours'
>> versus 'abusive behaviours'? I mean, those things are *opposites*, one
>> would think it shouldn't be THAT hard to distinguish between the two
>> categories? (Allowing for personal, unique definitions of supportive
>> and abusive where needed.)
>
>It doesn't seem possible, because the things that feel supportive
>and abusive to me don't seem to be the same, in a lot of cases, as
>the things which feel that way to other people, and other people
>don't all want the same things as each other, either, so I don't
>see how such a list could even be made.
such a list can be made with each other person, and it might
well be a different list for every friend. i have quite
different lists for my beloveds. the paramour wants to be
fussed over when sick; i want to be left alone.
>For example, if someone
>is crying in public, for some people the supportive thing to do is
>to pay them a lot of attention and give active support, and the
>abusive thing to do would be to ignore them. But for others, the
>supportive thing to do is ignore them, help them preserve "face,"
>avoid embarassing them by drawing any attention to it, and the
>abusive thing would be to draw attention to it.
and it's ok to make a mistake now and then.
>And does this have anything to do with manipulation?
LK's mind sometimes works in mysterious ways. :-)
people can pretend to be supportive, but really undermine
you instead. this takes some talent, and it's difficult
to spot. if your gut instincts are working reasonably ok
you can _feel_ it -- you don't ever feel really better af-
ter somebody like that is done supporting you; you feel a
bit worn down.
>Well, there is a truth there -- I am a lousy judge of character; I
>trust everyone, I believe everything everyone says about themselves.
>Now I know I shouldn't, but I don't have any way to know which things
>to believe and which things not to -- I don't have a lie detector.
i do have a lie detector, but it takes some time to cali-
brate itself to a new person. most people who lie are not
very good at it, they will slip up sooner or later. only
true con artists are good at it, and for those the rule of
thumb works that if it sounds too good to be true, it pro-
bably is.
but even people who're not trying to manipulate you don't
always know themselves perfectly -- there is much not to
know. so it might not be a lie. it might just be an un-
truth. i find those hardest to deal with -- how to tell
them from lies, for one.
>But this theory doesn't hold up, because the people who have called
>me "manipulative" have been people with the best reputations among
>their communities, well-liked and considered by many others to be
>good and honest and not abusive.
well -- some thoughts:
you do seem to me to have a lot of drama in your life, or
at least you did. there is always something. you're a
magnet for trouble, it seems, and without getting into how
responsible you are for it, there is a limit to most peo-
ple's patience with real life drama. they start to think
you make it happen, or you exaggerate it to stay the cen-
ter of attention.
you also, to me, seem to have some strong beliefs about
what friends owe you if they are "real" friends. we had
some discussions about that, and i don't want to reprise
them. it occurs to me that you might try too hard to get
people to behave as you want them to behave, and show
your disappointment very strongly if they don't.
also, people might feel used by you for a number of rea-
sons. one reason might be that they don't feel they can
say "no" to you without you resenting it and carrying a
grudge. they might feel they have to forever prove their
friendship by doing things for you, but you hardly ever
do anything for them (after all, you are terribly busy,
what with the kids and all). after a while this might get
really old, but they might never say anything, just drift
away, and bitch about you to others, and word gets around.
something that has nothing to do with you: some people
have huge fanclubs who don't think anything bad of them,
who sun themselves in admiration for their good qualities.
in reality those admirers don't really know the person
all that well; it's all a mutual admiration society, and
if you don't fit, well, you of course must have bad qua-
lities, cause the good ones are all taken.
i mean you remember high school, right? the popular kids?
were they really all as wonderful as they assured each
other they were? uh hn. for some people that phenomenon
continues in adult life. pillars of the community and all.
charm and wit and charisma do _not_ guarantee honesty and
integrity, but millions of people vote for politicians on
the basis of a carefully created image.
>There is a phenomenon I've recently heard people talk about, and
>heard some people describe this who had some experiences parallel
>to my own. The theory is that a lot of people can instinctively
>"smell" weaknesses, and then they instinctively turn on the weak
>person, showing them an abusive side that they would never show
>anyone else. It makes sense, in that it parallels animal behavior.
oh, sure, bullies can smell punching bags. well, not ex-
actly "smell". but a quickie trial balloon usually shows
who'll flinch.
but one can't blame everything on bullies either.
>Understand that it has not been my *partners* who have called
>me "manipulative" when they were my partners. My partners
>have (at least as far as they ever let me know) trusted my
>sincerity, until someone -- other partner, friend(s) -- even-
>tually convinced them otherwise, either resulting in, or just
>after, the end of the relationship.
sometimes that happens to preserve the peace in the con-
tinuing relationship. not that i consider it a good
thing, mind you, but it does happen.
>Current example: my last ex's wife accuses me of "manipula-
>ting" him regarding things about our child. She says I "get
>my way" by "taking advantage of" his "fear of confrontation."
well, there are people like that. one of my almost-part-
ners was basically letting himself be ruled by somebody
who got what zie wanted because this person could not
stand fighting or watching zir cry.
>The last thing that apparently prompted her to say this was
>when I told him I would need our daughter with me for my
>handfasting (so we would need to rearrange the schedule that
>weekend). She said I manipulated him "all the time," but
>this is the first time (the child is three) that I have ever
>used language in requesting a change in schedule which indi-
>cated that I didn't really consider what I was asking for to
>be negotiable -- every other time, I have been very careful
>to ask whether a change or swap would be okay, to say "only
>if it's okay," "it's not really vital, only if it's conveni-
>ent for you," etc.
yeah well. don't, please, tell me you're surprised at
anything from that direction. it would be illogical.
:-)
>Apparently she thinks that he is incapable of saying "no" to
>anything, so it's wrong to ever ask him for anything, no mat-
>ter how the asking is done. I think that's a pretty unreason-
>able stand.
ummm. without taking into consideration who this is, i
_am_ reminded of that almost-partner of mine again --
i had serious troubles asking zir for anything because
i could observe that zie couldn't say "no" to somebody
zie cared for. and i was pretty furious at that other
person who was using zir, both financially and emotio-
nally. i basically thought zie ought to just drop dead,
really. (zie was a real asshole IMO.)
if this were to happen again, i am not sure what i would
do. shuttle my partner off to a shrink, so zie can learn
to stand up for zirself, probably. it is not reasonable
to expect others to curtail their asking entirely; it's
not healthy if somebody can't say "no".
>I think what I was getting at is that "manipulate" is itself a
>neutral thing or even a good thing.
in some of its meanings, it is.
>But people seem to use the
>word now to mean "manipulate without [enough] regard for others."
"manage in underhanded ways, deviously, for personal gain,
and with little or no regard for others" would be my de-
finition.
>I think lack of regard is wrong, but manipulation itself is not.
>But because they use the word "manipulation," it seems like they
>come to think of *any* attempt to influence a situation for one's
>own benefit as wrong, even when that attempt may include much
>consideration for others. Is this making sense, or am I talking
>in circles?
for the regard is important, but what's more so to give
the negative meaning to manipulation is the underhanded-
ness.
>Yeah, laying guilt trips is a bad thing -- I see this in my twelve
>year old when she tries to guilt her little sister into hugging
>her with the "you don't love me, I'm going to cry" line. The
>wrong thing here as I see it is that the hug is really *not* worth
>the feelings the older girl is putting on to try to get the little
>one to hug her. It's a fake; she is exaggerating just to try to
>control. But if the feelings were *real*, not exaggerated, I
>don't think it would be wrong.
yes, it would still be wrong IMO. "you don't love me"
is not necessarily the truth, and using that loaded way
of expressing one's feelings of loneliness (or whatever
it is) seems very self-centred and without regard for
the feelings of the other person to me. it _hurts_ to
be told "you don't love me" if one does. one can ex-
press "i am hurting, could you please console me" with-
out the loaded crap.
>It's not wrong to say "ow, you
>stepped on my toe, that really hurts, please don't do it again,"
>in order to try to get someone to stop stepping on your toe.
yup. but that is different from saying "you don't care
about other people; you stepped on my toe to hurt me".
>It's
>*right* to explain your feelings that way, so they can be able to
>predict and consider your feelings in the future. Isn't it? Yes,
>it does work, at least in part, by making the person feel "guilty."
>They avoid stepping on your toe in the future because they don't
>want to feel guilty. They are "manipulated" into avoiding your
>toe. But I don't think this is wrong.
i don't agree that this is making me guilty, and that i
in the future avoid stepping on toes out of guilt. i do
not feel guilty for accidents. i will feel sorry that i
stepped on toes, and if that was in any way attributable
to some negligence, i'll make a note of it. i might slow
down and look where i am stepping. but i am not guilted
into it.
>But I've been accused of "laying guilt trips" and "manipulation"
>when I've expressed my very real, not exaggerated, feelings, and
>asked someone to stop doing something that was hurting me. I wish
>I knew why.
it probably depends on how you said it, if the person who
perceived you as laying a guilt trip was a decent person.
your real might be my exaggerated, btw. i don't think it
is so much about the feelings for me, but about what res-
ponsibility i am assigned for them.
the difference between "what you did hurt me" and "you did
that to hurt me!" shows that about as well as i can show
it.
>The line is so fuzzy, though, how do you tell where it is? What if
>"my way or else (the relationship ends)" is the simple truth?
ultimatums -- last resort in a relationship, and in mine,
it pretty much means it's over already. this can border
on manipulation, but it isn't so per se.
"i'll kill myself if you leave me", what do you think that
is?
>"If
>you loved me, you would..." sounds bad, but what if you're talking
>about some genuinely abusive behavior -- how else do you say "the
>way you have been treating me is not consistent with 'love?'"
ah, here's the rub. as i thought. i wouldn't say this to
somebody. i would say "i feel abused by what you do, and
i do not feel loved". i wouldn't try and define what love
means in general, and by extension for this other person,
that road is suffused with potholes. some people think if
they throw a jealousy tantrum, that proves their love -- do
i really want to get bogged down into an argument about who
has the better definition?
no. the point is that i do not feel loved if somebody is
screaming at me in fits of jealousy, and tries to cut me
off from my friends. that is the only point we need to dis-
cuss. what love means is better left for usenet.
>(Which, rephrased slightly, is "if you loved me, you wouldn't abuse
>me.")
"if you loved me" is just about always a lousy way to start
this sort of discussion to repair anything. no matter what
you hang after it. it puts the emphasis on the wrong thing,
and it is not really fair to say, because frankly, you do
not _know_ what zie feels.
> (Note: I don't define "love" as just an emotion -- I think
>"love" is more accurately defined as "caring to the extent that one
>has a willingness to *do* something, undertake some level of work,
>some level of sacrifice, for the other person.")
you have your right to your own idiosyncratic opinion of
what love means, and you have the right to seek out part-
ners who share that definition, but trying to tell somebody
else whether or not they love because they don't live up to
_your_ definition is a bad idea.
i think love can be any of these things, btw. it can just
be emotion in my book as well.
>Actually I recently got some insight into something that sheds some
>light on this and the "guilt trip" issue. I seem to have emotions
>that are not exactly binary, but have few gradations. I am either
>not bothered by something, a little bothered... or so bothered I
>can think of nothing else. I am either not sad, a little sad, or
>suicidal. I either don't like someone, I like them a little, or
>I'm "ass over elbows" for them. My emotions tend to come in ex-
>tremes. It occurred to me that this could sometimes lead to people
>thinking I'm exaggerating my feelings to try to "manipulate," when
>in fact I'm being totally honest about the depth of my feelings.
yes. good insight! how can one tell a drama queen from some-
body who really feels that way? i don't know that i can, not
at a casual glance. i am probably biased in favour of thin-
king "drama queen".
but i also wonder how much responsibility one has for one's
feelings, and how one inflicts them on others. there is this
wide-spread idea that feelings just "are" and that one has
no control over them. i don't agree with that, and i am very
unlikely to get involved with somebody who needs to let it
all hang out.
hard issues.
-piranha
Angi Long
> Angi Long <angi...@home.com> wrote:
> >what's the difference between negotiating for your own
> >needs, and "manipulating?"
> Manipulating generally has the connotation of using underhanded tactics
> to get away with something.
Yeah. I think I'm defensive now about the term "manipulative,"
and here's why: For example (with past partner), I state that I
want/need certain things from the relationship, and if partner
can't or won't give me those things, I will have to break it off.
Partner's other calls that "manipulative." Meanwhile partner's
other gets partner to make changes by leaving their home and then
giving an ultimatum about what must happen before they return. I
conclude that "manipulative" is code for "things it's okay for
*me* to do but not for *you*."
> Just trying to negotiate a change is not manipulative in the negative
> connotation of the word, if you don't try to call up guilt in someone in
> order to get your way, or if you don't lie or withhold information in
> order to get your way.
I've never lied or purposely withheld information, and I've never
done anything with the purpose of calling up guilt. But I don't
see how it's possible to *avoid* calling up guilt if I'm talking
about things that have the potential to hurt me or someone else.
If I give "because it hurts me" as a reason for wanting someone
to not do something, then I hope they're going to avoid doing it
because they *care* about me. But they may, instead, avoid doing
it to avoid feeling guilty. I don't think that guilt is a bad
thing, either, if it *comes from caring* rather than from social
programming without any real caring involved.
> >Say, for example, that there's an issue, X, which I feel strongly
> >enough about that I feel I must end the relationship if X goes on.
> >If I *say* that, then I'm called a "maniplator."
> Are you called a manipulator every time you say that?
Before my current relationship, then to my recollection, I think
I was, yes. Not by that partner at that time, but by others who
didn't approve of the relationship for one reason or another, and
often by that partner later, after the end of the relationship.
> I would call that an ultimatum. Some people feel that ultimatums are
> manipulative by definition. I don't, but I think it's best for the
> relationship if relationship-killing boundaries are discussed before
> potentially-relationship-killing situations are actually occurring.
I think it's an ultimatum if it happens after the relationship
is already established. I have always tried to cover these
things long before that point. But of course, you can't cover
*everything* (you can't think of everything that might ever
come up), and things change, so sometimes it needs to happen
later, too. I didn't used to like ultimatums -- they do seem
distasteful, somehow -- but now I don't see how they really be
avoided. If the statement is true, then I think that *failing*
to give that information -- that you will leave if a certain
thing happens or doesn't happen -- is wrong, in that it with-
holds information while the other person is making a decision.
And *not* being willing to leave if it's something that impor-
tant is self-destructive.
Then again, I can think of times when an ultimatum would be
manipulative in a negative sense. For example, when you know
the other person has some kind of impaired capacity to make a
decision, such as when they are unhealthily dependent on the
relationship. That's not normally the case, but then again,
it may be more common than we want to think.
> For example, early in my relationship with my primary I said that if I
> were hit nonconsensually, I would probably feel that I should end the
> relationship. I wasn't called a manipulator for saying that.
What if your primary started hitting you, and you reminded
them of what you had said?
Hitting is probably a bad example here. Let's take something
which sounds less like clear-cut abuse. Say you had told
your partner early in your relationship that you only want
the relationship as long as they are willing to do all the
dishes. (Maybe not realistic that somebody would feel that
strongly about dishes, but I don't think it's *too* far from
some of the things people feel strongly about, and dish-
washing was actually used as an example in some legal papers
I read on prenuptial agreements.) Say that your partner
agrees, and promises to do all the dishes. Say that later,
your partner stops doing the dishes. You remind them of your
earlier statement and ask them to keep their promise. Is
this "manipulative?" Could it be seen that way?
> >If I say how hurt I am that somebody keeps breaking dates with me
> >and breaking promises, then I'm called "manipulative" -- I'm try-
> >ing to "manipulate" them into keeping their dates and promises.
> Again, does this happen every time you say you are hurt that someone
> keeps breaking dates and promises with you? Or are you thinking of
> specific example(s)?
I'm thinking of specific examples, but more than one.
> Of the people you've had such conversations with, how many of them have
> called you "manipulative" as a result of such requests? Have any not
> done so? For example, have you had any similar conversations with your
> handfasted sweetie, and has he called you a manipulator?
No, he's never called me manipulative (I think I'll keep this
one :) In my last relationship, my partner didn't call me ma-
nipulative *during* the relationship -- at least, not so I knew
about it (he may have said things like that about me to others,
I don't know for sure). But his primary and many people from a
large community we were part of did.
> I'm asking because sometimes when a person says "you're being
> manipulative," it's because they are feeling accused and defensive and
> don't want to do what you're asking. In other words, sometimes it's
> something more about them than about how you handled the interaction.
Yeah, I suspect that. But when it becomes a pattern, or when
it's being said by many people, I have to wonder.
> On the other hand there may be something about how you ask for things
> that invokes guilt feelings or manipulation feelings in a lot of people.
> Hazarding a guess based on your Usenet writing style -- sometimes your
> posts seem to invoke guilt feelings or stupidity feelings.
Guilt feelings, really? How?
> This is something that took me a very long time to learn:
> If you tell someone you are hurt and ask them to change their behavior,
> they are very likely to feel defensive. [ . . . ]
> (1) instead of mentioning your hurt feelings, make a request that
> doesn't reference feelings. "I need you to keep dates and promises." The
> reason for that is some people hear a statement that references hurt
> feelings as underhandedly manipulative.
I thought I was *supposed* to talk about my feelings (sometimes
a very difficult thing to do, especially face to face).
> (2) to silently revamp your understanding of that person so that you no
> longer consider them a person who keeps dates and promises, and then act
> accordingly.
I think this is better saved as a last resort, for after I've
tried to see if they could and would change their habits. Be-
cause "acting accordingly" would probably mean distancing my-
self from them.
> >Or if I start a relationship saying "I need X, Y, and Z in a re-
> >lationship, so before this starts, I need to know whether you
> >want and can give me X, Y, and Z. Can you?" That gets called
> >"manipulative."
> Always?
Always so far in past relationships, but not by the partner,
to me, during the relationship. By others during, and by the
partner afterwards.
> >I thought it was just honest negotiation.
> I think it's honest negotiation, but in some cases, I might not know
> whether I can offer X, Y, and Z. What would you do then?
Hopefully you would be honest about that, and then I'd refrain
from much life-entanglement with you until you knew. Or until
my own needs or perspective had changed and I realized that I
might now not need X, Y, and Z.
Vicki Rosenzweig
>In article <PAd65.34610$Ey2.2...@news1.sttls1.wa.home.com>,
>Angi Long <angi...@home.com> wrote:
>>
> susie might also slyly undercut your joy without being quite
> so obvious, by comparing your experiences with frank to hers
> with other, more successful, richer, smarter men, which were
> naturally ever so much more fascinating, sophisticated, pas-
> sionate, etc. this can all be done under the guise of "sha-
> ring between girlfriends".
>
> if you ever have a "girlfriend" where everything you start to
> talk about ends up in you talking for 5 minutes and she for
> 5 hours, that's somebody like that. you are just a foil to
> her, to display herself against.
>
Indeed. A while back, someone (who I am no longer in touch with, nor
want to be) asked me "how was your vacation?" and interrupted me before
I'd finished my first sentence.
It felt weird as well as rude--if she hadn't wanted to hear that, she
didn't need to ask. She could have said "Hi, Vicki,...." and talked
about what was on her mind: I wasn't brandishing a stack of photos or
anything.
>
<large snip>
>
>>Actually I recently got some insight into something that sheds some
>>light on this and the "guilt trip" issue. I seem to have emotions
>>that are not exactly binary, but have few gradations. I am either
>>not bothered by something, a little bothered... or so bothered I
>>can think of nothing else. I am either not sad, a little sad, or
>>suicidal. I either don't like someone, I like them a little, or
>>I'm "ass over elbows" for them. My emotions tend to come in ex-
>>tremes. It occurred to me that this could sometimes lead to people
>>thinking I'm exaggerating my feelings to try to "manipulate," when
>>in fact I'm being totally honest about the depth of my feelings.
>
> yes. good insight! how can one tell a drama queen from some-
> body who really feels that way? i don't know that i can, not
> at a casual glance. i am probably biased in favour of thin-
> king "drama queen".
>
> but i also wonder how much responsibility one has for one's
> feelings, and how one inflicts them on others. there is this
> wide-spread idea that feelings just "are" and that one has
> no control over them. i don't agree with that, and i am very
> unlikely to get involved with somebody who needs to let it
> all hang out.
I think that, at least some of the time, feelings just are. But what
we do with or about them is a choice, one from a wide range of choices.
Random example: some people who are miserable looking at photos of
disasters on television change the channel; others contribute to the
Red Cross; still others may sit there, watching, and hope that the
beer they're drinking will make them feel better.
--
Vicki Rosenzweig
v...@redbird.org | http://www.redbird.org
Web Log: http://www.redbird.org/yawl.html
"Life goes on, even if two-headed and glowing faintly
in the dark." --Ursula Le Guin
LK
>In article <PAd65.34610$Ey2.2...@news1.sttls1.wa.home.com>,
>Angi Long <angi...@home.com> wrote:
> and it's ok to make a mistake now and then.
>
>>And does this have anything to do with manipulation?
>
> LK's mind sometimes works in mysterious ways. :-)
Yeah, I just have a knack for some things.
Like I have a knack for "characterization" in my fiction.
And I've realized that I can be a crappy person sometimes. And a
desire to be a controlling person, sometimes.
And I'm almost cute, too. <snirk>
> people can pretend to be supportive, but really undermine
> you instead. this takes some talent, and it's difficult
> to spot. if your gut instincts are working reasonably ok
> you can _feel_ it -- you don't ever feel really better af-
> ter somebody like that is done supporting you; you feel a
> bit worn down.
Great description. Quite accurate.
[snip]
>>There is a phenomenon I've recently heard people talk about, and
>>heard some people describe this who had some experiences parallel
>>to my own. The theory is that a lot of people can instinctively
>>"smell" weaknesses, and then they instinctively turn on the weak
>>person, showing them an abusive side that they would never show
>>anyone else. It makes sense, in that it parallels animal behavior.
>
> oh, sure, bullies can smell punching bags. well, not ex-
> actly "smell". but a quickie trial balloon usually shows
> who'll flinch.
>
> but one can't blame everything on bullies either.
This is true. And I have little patience with "punching bags" and
people who want others to make decisions for them (not saying Angie is
either one of those). I may be very fond of them and admire their
sweetness but their gullibility factor and _their_ manipulation or
outright refusal to make decisions and/or to tell the person walking
over them to lay off, then complain to me/others about the person
walking on them.... Arrrgh! Then when I feel I want to protect them
like a teenager e.g., a 20 or 40-something woman who acts naive and
seems to get entangled with the wrong men over and over but continues
to believe in white knights and being rescued, but refuses to raise
her standards (as in asking them to prove themselves trustworhty and
not make excuses for the man's poor behavior) and declares herself to
be give, give, give...and "I'm so sweet why do they do this to me? I
ask _nothing_ of them?", etc.
Which was a problem with spouse's former secondary--back when I was
still trying to adjust, before I said enough is enough-- he and I both
felt protective of her. Yet, I was the one who had been kept in the
dark about them, but I felt ,and he expressed, this desire not to put
too much on her shoulders about the responsibility of poly
relationships. --The fact that I felt that way about someone my age
or slightly older, ticked me off. Being kind and open to
communication is one thing, but protective of her role in decieving
me--something isn't right here.
So I almost was navigated into the position of being a bad guy who was
pushing for communication against someone who refused to talk.
>>Understand that it has not been my *partners* who have called
>>me "manipulative" when they were my partners. My partners
>>have (at least as far as they ever let me know) trusted my
>>sincerity, until someone -- other partner, friend(s) -- even-
>>tually convinced them otherwise, either resulting in, or just
>>after, the end of the relationship.
>
> sometimes that happens to preserve the peace in the con-
> tinuing relationship. not that i consider it a good
> thing, mind you, but it does happen.
>
>>Current example: my last ex's wife accuses me of "manipula-
>>ting" him regarding things about our child. She says I "get
>>my way" by "taking advantage of" his "fear of confrontation."
>
> well, there are people like that. one of my almost-part-
> ners was basically letting himself be ruled by somebody
> who got what zie wanted because this person could not
> stand fighting or watching zir cry.
Then again there are cowards who put on a good face of being
manipulative themselves. Come on, a man who's probably stronger and
taller than Angie is scared of Angie?! I've had the damn near the
exact same thing said about me by a man who outweighed me by 100 lbs
and his male friend laugh at him for saying it--which gave the guy
another reason to be angry at me. The guy was afraid of me becuase I
didn't cave into his seduction, that I treated him as an equal and not
an "obviously" superior person because of his gender, like his
girlfirend did. She scuttled and submitted and served that guy and
disliked me becuase I didn't show enough respect to the jerk. The
guy and I used to be friends until he discovered sex and figured a "Y"
should turn on any "X." Plus he blamed me for braking the heart of
his best friend even though I didn't initate the breakup and I tried
to reunite.
The fear is BS. The fear is that Angie has forced this man to take
responsibility, to be accountable for his behavior and that not all
decisions can shrugged off; not all decisons have "invisible"
consquences that can be lied about. He's scared of Angie's power over
him. He is accountable. And he set himself for it but chooses to
blame her and the loyal spouse chooses to not hold him accountable for
his poor and immature behavior and power trip. One's will is not
enough to change the facts of life.
What woman wants to face the fact that her choosen one is an abusive
SOB and a coward? So it's so much easier to put total blame on the
other party. Loyal spouse has to save face, too. (The posts the two
of them, if I'm recalling correctly the parties involved, used to put
on seattle.general NG about their marriage and their <ahem> private
lives <cough> was incredible! Plus arguing with other posters to that
NG about his character and behavior and their new marital
agreement.... Good grief. A day without noterity in a public forum
is a day without...)
Anyway...
>>The last thing that apparently prompted her to say this was
>>when I told him I would need our daughter with me for my
>>handfasting (so we would need to rearrange the schedule that
>>weekend). She said I manipulated him "all the time," but
>>this is the first time (the child is three) that I have ever
>>used language in requesting a change in schedule which indi-
>>cated that I didn't really consider what I was asking for to
>>be negotiable -- every other time, I have been very careful
>>to ask whether a change or swap would be okay, to say "only
>>if it's okay," "it's not really vital, only if it's conveni-
>>ent for you," etc.
>
> yeah well. don't, please, tell me you're surprised at
> anything from that direction. it would be illogical.
> :-)
>
>>Apparently she thinks that he is incapable of saying "no" to
>>anything, so it's wrong to ever ask him for anything, no mat-
>>ter how the asking is done. I think that's a pretty unreason-
>>able stand.
And somehow that's your (Angie's) problem? She chooses to remaind
married to weak Willie so what's she complaining about? Oh, yes, you
destroyed his public image in a planned smeared campaigned. --As if
that's your reason for living. Some people have too much time on
there hands. (Yeah, I've heard the accusation before with regard to
other people and other relationships.)
[snip]
I'd add: drop the love bit. It has nothing, or little, to do with
anything. If someone steps on your foot in the street, you don't
expect a stranger to say "If you genuinely loved your felllow humans,
you wouldn't step on my foot." Tina Turner was right: what's love
got to do with it? The topic is the behavior, the feelings are
secondary. And when someone argues back "But I love you," often the
best answer is "I'm not questioning your love or my value in your
eyes. I'm not happy about ________________." And keep repeating the
problem withtout being distracted by the love word.
You don't do that with children: "If you loved me you would clean
your room" or "If you loved me you wouldn't leave the kitchen a mess
after making a snack." The behavior, the activity is separate from
love which is a background feeling, a stage upon which these
relationships, these interactions are played out. Sometimes it is
hard to not mistake the stage as being the play. The stage is what
remains after the joy, after disagreements, after the repetition,
after the grocery list is fulfilled, and the bathroom is cleaned when
the toilet backed up..
>Actually I recently got some insight into something that sheds some
>>light on this and the "guilt trip" issue. I seem to have emotions
>>that are not exactly binary, but have few gradations. I am either
>>not bothered by something, a little bothered... or so bothered I
>>can think of nothing else. I am either not sad, a little sad, or
>>suicidal. I either don't like someone, I like them a little, or
>>I'm "ass over elbows" for them. My emotions tend to come in ex-
>>tremes. It occurred to me that this could sometimes lead to people
>>thinking I'm exaggerating my feelings to try to "manipulate," when
>>in fact I'm being totally honest about the depth of my feelings.
>
> yes. good insight! how can one tell a drama queen from some-
> body who really feels that way? i don't know that i can, not
> at a casual glance. i am probably biased in favour of thin-
> king "drama queen".
>
> but i also wonder how much responsibility one has for one's
> feelings, and how one inflicts them on others. there is this
> wide-spread idea that feelings just "are" and that one has
> no control over them. i don't agree with that, and i am very
> unlikely to get involved with somebody who needs to let it
> all hang out.
>
> hard issues.
Interesting insight. Something that _might_ help is having a sense of
humor about the few graduations. Make it into a kind of joke for
accquaintances like a 1, 3, 5 rating or 1, 5, 10. It could help
others understand these are genuine emotions and be lighthearted.
Lighthearted people are usually not considered to be melodramatic
people. It can feel weird, but being lighthearted can be a kind of
"fake it until you feel it" sort of thing. Often what people like
best about other people is being able to laugh at themselves even when
it is a painful laugh. Others know that something hurts even you
laugh about it and it can ease discomfort all around. (I'm no expert
at this technique, but it sometimes it helps.)
LK
Angi Long
> >>heard some people describe this who had some experiences parallel
> >>to my own. The theory is that a lot of people can instinctively
> >>"smell" weaknesses, and then they instinctively turn on the weak
> >>person, showing them an abusive side that they would never show
> >>anyone else. It makes sense, in that it parallels animal behavior.
> > oh, sure, bullies can smell punching bags. well, not ex-
> > actly "smell". but a quickie trial balloon usually shows
> > who'll flinch.
> > but one can't blame everything on bullies either.
Sure, but bullies are relatively few (supposedly). I'm talking
about something that's done by *most* people, not just by bul-
lies. If someone doesn't have the right -- not "smell," but
"vibes" -- they don't react to them as "fellow human."
> This is true. And I have little patience with "punching bags" and
> people who want others to make decisions for them (not saying Angie is
> either one of those). I may be very fond of them and admire their
> sweetness but their gullibility factor and _their_ manipulation or
> outright refusal to make decisions and/or to tell the person walking
> over them to lay off, then complain to me/others about the person
> walking on them.... Arrrgh! Then when I feel I want to protect them
> like a teenager e.g., a 20 or 40-something woman who acts naive and
> seems to get entangled with the wrong men over and over but continues
> to believe in white knights and being rescued, but refuses to raise
> her standards (as in asking them to prove themselves trustworhty and
> not make excuses for the man's poor behavior) and declares herself to
> be give, give, give...and "I'm so sweet why do they do this to me? I
> ask _nothing_ of them?", etc.
To some extent, that sounds a lot like me, but I wouldn't say I
have any problem with making decisions or telling other people to
lay off. I just don't have much success with getting other people
to actually lay off when I tell them to.
> >>Current example: my last ex's wife accuses me of "manipula-
> >>ting" him regarding things about our child. She says I "get
> >>my way" by "taking advantage of" his "fear of confrontation."
> > well, there are people like that. one of my almost-part-
> > ners was basically letting himself be ruled by somebody
> > who got what zie wanted because this person could not
> > stand fighting or watching zir cry.
> Then again there are cowards who put on a good face of being
> manipulative themselves. Come on, a man who's probably stronger and
> taller than Angie is scared of Angie?!
Yeah, and I have a really hard time buying the "fear of con-
frontation" thing especially when virtually all our communi-
cation takes place through email. And he certainly has no
fear of having his lawyers respond to my email for him when
it's something about the child support which might actually
go to court.
> What woman wants to face the fact that her choosen one is an abusive
> SOB and a coward? So it's so much easier to put total blame on the
> other party. Loyal spouse has to save face, too.
That much, I really believe is the case here. It's probably
why she's calling his "fear of confrontation" a "psychological
problem" (her own words). If he's got a "problem," then he's
not responsible for his own actions, right? And she saves
face by spreading lies about me, which of course the old com-
munity -- her friends -- will always believe over anything I
say in my own defense.
But I don't know that she spread actual lies about me before
the breakup. Maybe I'm just being stupid, but I always want
to believe the best of people, so I think she didn't actually
start *lying* about me until that time. So I have to put
some stock in some of the things other people said to me, and
things said to others that got back to me through the grape-
vine. And a lot of those things said that many people saw me
as manipulative.
> (The posts the two
> of them, if I'm recalling correctly the parties involved, used to put
> on seattle.general NG about their marriage and their <ahem> private
> lives <cough> was incredible! Plus arguing with other posters to that
> NG about his character and behavior and their new marital
> agreement.... Good grief. A day without noterity in a public forum
> is a day without...)
Wow, those are posts I don't remember ever seeing (I never
did read seattle.general much). I really didn't mean to go
way into trashing these same people (only to talk about how
some of the interactions worked/work, because I'm still try-
ing to learn from them). But thanks, that makes me feel
supported :)
> > yeah well. don't, please, tell me you're surprised at
> > anything from that direction. it would be illogical.
> > :-)
Surprised, no :) Repeatedly frustrated and disappointed, yes.
:/ Hurt when it winds up hurting my child and my family, too
(as with the thing about "step-daddy").
[re: ultimatums]
> > "i'll kill myself if you leave me", what do you think that
> > is?
Stupid. "I'll kill *you* if you leave me" -- now that might
make more sense. (kidding) Seriously, I think that if it's
true, it's a sign of something seriously wrong with that per-
son, and they should get some help. If it's not true, then
it's a pretty nasty attempt at manipulation, and I don't see
how it would work on anyone who would be worth staying with
anyway (maybe people who use this kind of manipulation and
people who are swayed by it deserve each other).
If they don't mean it literally, but are expressing how bad
they would feel if the other person left ("I'd just kill my-
self if you ever left me. I mean, I wouldn't actually *kill*
myself, but I'd feel that way, y'know?" etc.)... I suppose
it depends on the context. To try to convince the other per-
son not to leave, when they want to? It might not be very
constructive then, but then again it might -- maybe the other
person was contemplating leaving because they thought their
partner didn't care much about the relationship. If it's
honest, the way the person actually feels, then I can't see
saying it as a *bad* thing.
> >>"If
> >>you loved me, you would..." sounds bad, but what if you're talking
> >>about some genuinely abusive behavior -- how else do you say "the
> >>way you have been treating me is not consistent with 'love?'"
> >>(Which, rephrased slightly, is "if you loved me, you wouldn't abuse
> >>me.")
> > "if you loved me" is just about always a lousy way to start
> > this sort of discussion to repair anything. [ . . . ]
> I'd add: drop the love bit. It has nothing, or little, to do with
> anything. If someone steps on your foot in the street, you don't
> expect a stranger to say "If you genuinely loved your felllow humans,
> you wouldn't step on my foot." [ . . . ]
You're right. It's definitely a bad way to start any kind of
discussion. I will note that I don't believe I've ever said
anything like that in the beginning of trying to solve a prob-
lem. But I have much later, when it's been discussed multiple
times and I'm thoroughly sick of the person saying "I love you"
while at the same time jumping up and down on my foot.
But then, maybe the only thing I should be saying at that point
is "goodbye." I do tend to hang on too long, refusing to give
up on being able to solve things that I probably should have
recognized were unsolvable.
"If they loved me, they wouldn't have treated me that way" is a
constructive thing to do *after* the relationship, though, if
you find yourself in danger of getting love and abuse mixed up
in your head from the experience.
Stef Maruch
>"Stef Maruch" <st...@baygate.bayarea.net> wrote:
>> Angi Long <angi...@home.com> wrote:
>> >what's the difference between negotiating for your own
>> >needs, and "manipulating?"
>
>> Manipulating generally has the connotation of using underhanded tactics
>> to get away with something.
>
>Yeah. I think I'm defensive now about the term "manipulative,"
>and here's why: For example (with past partner), I state that I
>want/need certain things from the relationship, and if partner
>can't or won't give me those things, I will have to break it off.
>Partner's other calls that "manipulative." Meanwhile partner's
>other gets partner to make changes by leaving their home and then
>giving an ultimatum about what must happen before they return. I
>conclude that "manipulative" is code for "things it's okay for
>*me* to do but not for *you*."
Other conclusions are possible. You might conclude that both you and PO
acted in a manipulative manner. Or that neither of you did, but that PO
incorrectly labeled zir behavior differently from yours.
>> Just trying to negotiate a change is not manipulative in the negative
>> connotation of the word, if you don't try to call up guilt in someone in
>> order to get your way, or if you don't lie or withhold information in
>> order to get your way.
>I've never lied or purposely withheld information, and I've never
>done anything with the purpose of calling up guilt. But I don't
>see how it's possible to *avoid* calling up guilt if I'm talking
>about things that have the potential to hurt me or someone else.
Yes, it's difficult to avoid. I think in recognizing manipulation, the
intention is more important than the result. It's not manipulative
unless you do have the intention of getting your way by calling up guilt
or some similar emotion in the other person. If such an emotion happens
without intention, it's difficult, but it's not manipulative.
>If I give "because it hurts me" as a reason for wanting someone
>to not do something, then I hope they're going to avoid doing it
>because they *care* about me. But they may, instead, avoid doing
>it to avoid feeling guilty. I don't think that guilt is a bad
>thing, either, if it *comes from caring* rather than from social
>programming without any real caring involved.
I think avoidance of guilt is a poor reason to change one's behavior.
Guilt is one of those feelings that comes and goes. If someone's
behavior is based on guilt-avoidance, and the guilt goes away, their
reason for the behavior also goes away.
What creates more lasting behavior change IMO is to make some kind of
moral commitment to the behavior or tie it to a moral belief that you
want not to hurt the person you care about. That can override feelings
which might be temporarily uncooperative. (You may argue that moral
commitments/beliefs are ultimately based on feelings, and you'd be
somewhat right, but for me there is a big difference between doing
something based on a surface feeling and doing something based on
morals.)
>> >Say, for example, that there's an issue, X, which I feel strongly
>> >enough about that I feel I must end the relationship if X goes on.
>> >If I *say* that, then I'm called a "maniplator."
>
>> Are you called a manipulator every time you say that?
>
>Before my current relationship, then to my recollection, I think
>I was, yes. Not by that partner at that time, but by others who
>didn't approve of the relationship for one reason or another, and
>often by that partner later, after the end of the relationship.
Interesting.
>I think it's an ultimatum if it happens after the relationship
>is already established. I have always tried to cover these
>things long before that point. But of course, you can't cover
>*everything* (you can't think of everything that might ever
>come up), and things change, so sometimes it needs to happen
>later, too. I didn't used to like ultimatums -- they do seem
>distasteful, somehow -- but now I don't see how they really be
>avoided.
I guess they can be avoided (not all the time, but sometimes) if you are
the type of person who knows yourself and doesn't change quickly. If you
talk about changes that are occurring in what you want before you get
to the point of really needing those changes to take place, it's easier
to negotiate the changes without ultimatums. That's my experience
anyway.
>> For example, early in my relationship with my primary I said that if I
>> were hit nonconsensually, I would probably feel that I should end the
>> relationship. I wasn't called a manipulator for saying that.
>What if your primary started hitting you, and you reminded
>them of what you had said?
If I were called a manipulator for reminding zir, I wouldn't care.
>Hitting is probably a bad example here. Let's take something
>which sounds less like clear-cut abuse. Say you had told
>your partner early in your relationship that you only want
>the relationship as long as they are willing to do all the
>dishes. (Maybe not realistic that somebody would feel that
>strongly about dishes, but I don't think it's *too* far from
>some of the things people feel strongly about, and dish-
>washing was actually used as an example in some legal papers
>I read on prenuptial agreements.) Say that your partner
>agrees, and promises to do all the dishes. Say that later,
>your partner stops doing the dishes. You remind them of your
>earlier statement and ask them to keep their promise. Is
>this "manipulative?" Could it be seen that way?
I don't think it's manipulative. But if my partner said "I'm sorry, but
I just can't do all the dishes any more, can we negotiate some other way
of getting the dishes done -- maybe hire a dishwasher?" I think it would
be -- if not manipulative, then somewhat unreasonable -- of me to refuse
to consider any such suggestions and just keep on saying "But you
PROMISED."
>> Of the people you've had such conversations with, how many of them have
>> called you "manipulative" as a result of such requests? Have any not
>> done so? For example, have you had any similar conversations with your
>> handfasted sweetie, and has he called you a manipulator?
>No, he's never called me manipulative (I think I'll keep this
>one :) In my last relationship, my partner didn't call me ma-
>nipulative *during* the relationship -- at least, not so I knew
>about it (he may have said things like that about me to others,
>I don't know for sure). But his primary and many people from a
>large community we were part of did.
Well, I am not counting what the community said, since you did not have
conversations directly with them. Also, in the last relationship I
believe the point of contention involved whether to have children.
That's one of those things it's damn difficult to be flexible on.
>> On the other hand there may be something about how you ask for things
>> that invokes guilt feelings or manipulation feelings in a lot of people.
>> Hazarding a guess based on your Usenet writing style -- sometimes your
>> posts seem to invoke guilt feelings or stupidity feelings.
>
>Guilt feelings, really? How?
A lot of the things you say -- "I just don't see how such and such could
work" and so forth -- are things that some people say in a rhetorical
manner when they are scolding. I suspect you don't usually mean them
that way, since you say you are genuinely not clear on how many people
think.
>> This is something that took me a very long time to learn:
>
>> If you tell someone you are hurt and ask them to change their behavior,
>> they are very likely to feel defensive. [ . . . ]
>
>> (1) instead of mentioning your hurt feelings, make a request that
>> doesn't reference feelings. "I need you to keep dates and promises." The
>> reason for that is some people hear a statement that references hurt
>> feelings as underhandedly manipulative.
>
>I thought I was *supposed* to talk about my feelings (sometimes
>a very difficult thing to do, especially face to face).
That's what they say, but sometimes I think they overstate the case,
especially if the person you are talking to is not an intimate
friend/partner.
(I'm hoping someone else is reading this thread and will step in with an
opinion on this part.)
>> (2) to silently revamp your understanding of that person so that you no
>> longer consider them a person who keeps dates and promises, and then act
>> accordingly.
>I think this is better saved as a last resort, for after I've
>tried to see if they could and would change their habits. Be-
>cause "acting accordingly" would probably mean distancing my-
>self from them.
Yes, I agree, it's better saved as a last resort.
>> >Or if I start a relationship saying "I need X, Y, and Z in a re-
>> >lationship, so before this starts, I need to know whether you
>> >want and can give me X, Y, and Z. Can you?" That gets called
>> >"manipulative."
>
>> Always?
>
>Always so far in past relationships, but not by the partner,
>to me, during the relationship. By others during, and by the
>partner afterwards.
I would not count what "others" say in past relationships and what a
partner says "afterward" nearly as strongly as what happens during.
"Others" might be getting a completely incorrect idea of what's going
on, and "afterwards" partners are often angry at each other and willing
to rewrite things so that the breakup was all the ex's fault.
--
Stef ** rational/scientific/philosophical/mystical/magical/kitty **
** st...@cat-and-dragon.com <*> http://www.bayarea.net/~stef **
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Giant weekly magazines scare me. They are the busy adult's version of
monsters under the bed. -- SJM
LK
wrote:
>Stupid. "I'll kill *you* if you leave me" -- now that might
>make more sense. (kidding) Seriously, I think that if it's
>true, it's a sign of something seriously wrong with that per-
>son, and they should get some help. If it's not true, then
>it's a pretty nasty attempt at manipulation, and I don't see
>how it would work on anyone who would be worth staying with
>anyway (maybe people who use this kind of manipulation and
>people who are swayed by it deserve each other).
In either sense they both need help. A huge amount of murder-suicides
and exs killing formers are the result of the dehumanizing "If you
leave me I'll kill you." Often the perpetratof kills children and
friends in their wrath-- like slavery, treating family or (ex)lovers
like property to be disposed of when it no longer serves its purpose.
"___________ no serves their purpose to love me so, they have no use
to anyone, therefore waste them (murder)." Of course, the murderer
rarely thinks that clearly.
>If they don't mean it literally, but are expressing how bad
>they would feel if the other person left ("I'd just kill my-
>self if you ever left me. I mean, I wouldn't actually *kill*
>myself, but I'd feel that way, y'know?" etc.)... I suppose
>it depends on the context. To try to convince the other per-
>son not to leave, when they want to? It might not be very
>constructive then, but then again it might -- maybe the other
>person was contemplating leaving because they thought their
>partner didn't care much about the relationship. If it's
>honest, the way the person actually feels, then I can't see
>saying it as a *bad* thing.
I think the suicide threat needs to be taken seriously and
professional help obtained, but also get yourself and any children and
friends away from them. If someone feels they have nothing to live
for they sometimes think they are saving other from future greif by
killing them, too.
[snip]
>But then, maybe the only thing I should be saying at that point
>is "goodbye." I do tend to hang on too long, refusing to give
>up on being able to solve things that I probably should have
>recognized were unsolvable.
One will alone is not enough to change things; it also requires the
commitment of others.
>"If they loved me, they wouldn't have treated me that way" is a
>constructive thing to do *after* the relationship, though, if
>you find yourself in danger of getting love and abuse mixed up
>in your head from the experience.
Not even then, because you keep putting yourself into the equation. A
more accurate assessment would be, "If they loved themselves, they
would not have hated me. At least the parting would on speaking
terms."
I don't think you can get it mixed up. I think the labels can get
mixed up.
Sex ed, if I were writing the ciriculum, would inlcude realtionship
education as how to tell good realtionships from being ill-used, and
how to argue without hitting and major harming.
LK
Angi Long
> "Angi Long" <angi...@home.com> wrote:
> >If they don't mean it literally, but are expressing how bad
> >they would feel if the other person left ("I'd just kill my-
> >self if you ever left me. I mean, I wouldn't actually *kill*
> >myself, but I'd feel that way, y'know?" etc.)... I suppose
> I think the suicide threat needs to be taken seriously and
> professional help obtained, but also get yourself and any children and
> friends away from them. If someone feels they have nothing to live
> for they sometimes think they are saving other from future greif by
> killing them, too.
Don't you think the words can be said without it being a threat --
without it being meant to be taken literally? I hear people saying
things like "I'd just die" all the time. Even "I'd just kill my-
self if that happened." It's usually pretty clear that they don't
mean it *literally*.
> >"If they loved me, they wouldn't have treated me that way" is a
> >constructive thing to do *after* the relationship, though, if
> >you find yourself in danger of getting love and abuse mixed up
> >in your head from the experience.
> Not even then, because you keep putting yourself into the equation. A
> more accurate assessment would be, "If they loved themselves, they
> would not have hated me. At least the parting would on speaking
> terms."
> I don't think you can get it mixed up. I think the labels can get
> mixed up.
Yes, it can get mixed up. I've dealt with a child who had been
abused. Every time anyone said "I love you" to her, she cringed.
She expected to be hit. Every time someone got close to her, whe-
ther they used the label "love" or not, she pulled away, got vio-
lent. To her mind, love came with abuse; to be loved was to be
abused. Love *was* abuse.
And I've felt that starting to happen to my own mind, as an adult.
Lisa Geoffrion
wrote:
>Sex ed, if I were writing the ciriculum, would inlcude realtionship
>education as how to tell good realtionships from being ill-used, and
>how to argue without hitting and major harming.
I really agree with this. Has anyone ever seen anything like this? I'd love
to suggest something about "what is a healthy/unhealthy relationship" to the
local school system.
Lisa
------------
"There was never a war on poverty. Maybe there was a skirmish on poverty."
Andrew Cuomo, US HUD Secretary, 1999, in Time
Angi Long
> Angi Long <angi...@home.com> wrote:
> >Yeah. I think I'm defensive now about the term "manipulative,"
> >and here's why: For example (with past partner), I state that I
> >want/need certain things from the relationship, and if partner
> >can't or won't give me those things, I will have to break it off.
> >Partner's other calls that "manipulative." Meanwhile partner's
> >other gets partner to make changes by leaving their home and then
> >giving an ultimatum about what must happen before they return. I
> >conclude that "manipulative" is code for "things it's okay for
> >*me* to do but not for *you*."
> Other conclusions are possible. You might conclude that both you and PO
> acted in a manipulative manner. Or that neither of you did, but that PO
> incorrectly labeled zir behavior differently from yours.
I know I wasn't manipulative, because I know my own intentions. I
know I also did a lot of asking things like "are you sure you're
happy with this, are you sure this is the right thing to do," etc.
At one point, I saw PO as -- I wouldn't have called it "manipula-
tive" at the time, but *uncaring*, cold -- because partner was
telling me (repeatedly, with tears on my shoulder and obvious con-
stant depression) how miserable he was with what PO was requiring,
and how he had only given in because he was even more terrified of
losing PO. He said his life would be hell either way, and he was
having to choose the slightly-lesser of two horrible evils. I
thought PO either knew his feelings and was happy to have him
miserable, or didn't care about knowing his feelings and was just
happy to *have* him, regardless of how he felt about it. Anyway,
now I strongly suspect that partner was actually saying all those
things to *me*, but saying the opposite to PO, and as for what he
actually felt about anything, I have no idea. And maybe PO
thought I was being manipulative for the same reason -- because
of things partner was telling her that were very different from
what he was telling me.
Seems to me that if anybody was actually manipulative at that
time, it was him. The question left with me, though, is why PO
hasn't ever realized that.
> >If I give "because it hurts me" as a reason for wanting someone
> >to not do something, then I hope they're going to avoid doing it
> >because they *care* about me. But they may, instead, avoid doing
> >it to avoid feeling guilty. I don't think that guilt is a bad
> >thing, either, if it *comes from caring* rather than from social
> >programming without any real caring involved.
> I think avoidance of guilt is a poor reason to change one's behavior.
> Guilt is one of those feelings that comes and goes. If someone's
> behavior is based on guilt-avoidance, and the guilt goes away, their
> reason for the behavior also goes away.
Me, too. I think feeling the guilt, when it comes from caring,
is a good thing -- it's healthy to feel bad about hurting some-
one you care about. But I think it should be the caring, not
the guilt itself, that motivates behavior.
> What creates more lasting behavior change IMO is to make some kind of
> moral commitment to the behavior or tie it to a moral belief that you
> want not to hurt the person you care about. That can override feelings
> which might be temporarily uncooperative. (You may argue that moral
> commitments/beliefs are ultimately based on feelings, and you'd be
> somewhat right, but for me there is a big difference between doing
> something based on a surface feeling and doing something based on
> morals.)
I think moral beliefs are based on feelings, but not just on your
own feelings. They're also based on other people's feelings, and
on caring about other people's feelings.
But it's not so easy to differentiate. If you do something nice
for someone, you feel good. Of course you do, and you should.
But does that mean you're doing the nice thing because you care
about the other person, or are you just doing it to make yourself
feel good? Maybe a little of both?
> >I think it's an ultimatum if it happens after the relationship
> >is already established. I have always tried to cover these
> >things long before that point. But of course, you can't cover
> >*everything* (you can't think of everything that might ever
> >come up), and things change, so sometimes it needs to happen
> >later, too. I didn't used to like ultimatums -- they do seem
> >distasteful, somehow -- but now I don't see how they really be
> >avoided.
> I guess they can be avoided (not all the time, but sometimes) if you are
> the type of person who knows yourself and doesn't change quickly. If you
> talk about changes that are occurring in what you want before you get
> to the point of really needing those changes to take place, it's easier
> to negotiate the changes without ultimatums. That's my experience
> anyway.
You can know yourself, but you can't ever completely know the
other person, and how they might change, or seem to change as
other sides of them come out over time. And you can't ever think
of *everything* in the beginning. Something might come up later
which you had taken for granted in the beginning. Also, however
unchanging you normally are, things can still happen which change
you. Example: couple agrees they want children. Trying to have
children proves traumatic -- pregnancy is hard, or there's infer-
tility, or first child is stillborn, or whatever. One partner
changes their mind, doesn't want to try any more. Other partner
still wants to try. If feelings are strong enough, eventually
someone might have to give an ultimatum.
> >Say that your partner
> >agrees, and promises to do all the dishes. Say that later,
> >your partner stops doing the dishes. You remind them of your
> >earlier statement and ask them to keep their promise. Is
> >this "manipulative?" Could it be seen that way?
> I don't think it's manipulative. But if my partner said "I'm sorry, but
> I just can't do all the dishes any more, can we negotiate some other way
> of getting the dishes done -- maybe hire a dishwasher?" I think it would
> be -- if not manipulative, then somewhat unreasonable -- of me to refuse
> to consider any such suggestions and just keep on saying "But you
> PROMISED."
True. But if dishes were really a bottom-line issue with you,
and other options didn't work -- you couldn't afford a dish-
washer or a lot of disposable dishes, or for some reason it
was just really really important to you that your partner be
the one to actually wash the dishes themselves -- then you
might find yourself in the position of having to give an ulti-
matum. And in that position, I would feel that that ultimatum
was particularly *not* manipulative, because you had, after
all, been up front about your feelings on that issue from day
one.
I've found myself in that position, getting called manipula-
tive for insisting on what had been very up front about need-
ing in the first place. It seemed to me that others thought
that I should have been willing to compromise on my most bot-
tom-line issues, and accept a relationship that would have
been bad for me. I don't know, I never have got what others
thought I did wrong. Unless partner lied to them, telling
me all along that he agreed to what I wanted -- indeed,
wanted exactly the same thing himself -- while telling others
that he had *not* agreed to it. Which I now think is what
probably was going on. But still, I wish I knew why later,
after others had had a chance to hear my side of things, and
after it had even become quite obvious that there were things
he had definitely lied about, why did so many continue to be-
lieve him and disbelieve me? What is it that I do that
makes me so unbelievable?
> Well, I am not counting what the community said, since you did not have
> conversations directly with them.
I did have conversations directly with a few of them. Others
I only heard about through the grapevine, true. I wouldn't
put so much stock in PO's telling me (still, recently) that I
am "a very hated person" (meaning hated by many, not just
very hated by her) if I hadn't seen enough of it directly my-
self.
> Also, in the last relationship I
> believe the point of contention involved whether to have children.
> That's one of those things it's damn difficult to be flexible on.
That's probably what it looked like the point of contention
had been, after the fact. I think the real point of conten-
tion during the relationship was the level of commitment, de-
gree of life-entanglement, amount of future-planning. In
short, whether it was a Relationship, or just a sexual thing
with maybe some casual friendship.
Partner told me it was a Relationship, committed to future-
planning with me, told me before he spent much time with the
kids that if he did start to spend a lot of time with them,
he'd commit to sticking around and never just dropping cold
out of their lives, etc. PO didn't like that, wanted it to
be only sexual, no kind of commitment at all. I had been
totally up front about what I wanted (and required), with
her as well as with him, but I never did talk to PO enough,
and what I was sure she'd agreed with me on in early, she
seems to have completely erased from her memory later.
Partner always told me he was telling her everything we'd
talked about and that she agreed, but now I think he was
lying to me about what he was telling her. Portions of our
discussions always took place in email, and I knew PO read
that, so I thought there was no way anything significant
was being hidden from her, but when I looked back at the
email later, I noticed that *I* said a lot in email, but he
never did -- what he said was virtually always in person.
My email would be answering something, agreeing with some-
thing, he'd initiated in person the day before, but the im-
portant part, his actual words to me, were never there, ex-
cept for the barest hints. No record... and nothing to
indicate to her, if she was reading everything at the time,
that he was an active part of the conversations and plans
that I was putting my side of into writing.
That seems to show some pretty sophisticated planning, on
his part, to conceal things from her and mislead both of us.
I always *want* to give everyone the benefit of the doubt,
but I don't know what else to conclude from this.
> >> Hazarding a guess based on your Usenet writing style -- sometimes your
> >> posts seem to invoke guilt feelings or stupidity feelings.
> >Guilt feelings, really? How?
> A lot of the things you say -- "I just don't see how such and such could
> work" and so forth -- are things that some people say in a rhetorical
> manner when they are scolding. I suspect you don't usually mean them
> that way, since you say you are genuinely not clear on how many people
> think.
Hm, interesting. No, I usually just mean that I just don't
see whatever it is that they see. Sometimes I'm pretty sure
that I *won't* see, won't agree with them, but I wouldn't have
thought my disagreement would bring about *guilt* feelings.
Interesting.
> I would not count what "others" say in past relationships and what a
> partner says "afterward" nearly as strongly as what happens during.
> "Others" might be getting a completely incorrect idea of what's going
> on, and "afterwards" partners are often angry at each other and willing
> to rewrite things so that the breakup was all the ex's fault.
True. But what about what a partner says to others during
(which I may not find out about until afterward)?
Also, and what really bothers me -- *why* do others keep get-
ting incorrect data? Why do they keep believing the incor-
rect data over what I say myself? Why do I get into situa-
tions where they'll be given the incorrect data? What is it
that I do that *confirms*, to their minds, the conclusions
they've drawn from the incorrect data, so that they're never
willing to reconsider those conclusions?
Bill Gawne
> > But still, I wish I knew why later, after
> >others had had a chance to hear my side of things, and after it had
> >even become quite obvious that there were things he had definitely lied
> >about, why did so many continue to believe him and disbelieve me? What
> >is it that I do that makes me so unbelievable?
Aahz:
> Because, quite frankly, you're not a very likable person in many ways,
> whereas your ex-partner is [...]
Too true, I fear.
Angi, I spent most of the last 5 years with very spotty access to a.p.
and only have sort of an idea of what all went on. But from what I was
able to see of the posts, and the group dynamics, I really think Aahz
has it nailed here.
Please, realize that I say that with nothing but your posts here to
go on. In person it may well be that you're sparkling and vivacious
and wonderful fun to be around. I don't doubt that you have attractive
qualities. But going only by your net.persona, I have to concur with
Aahz. You come off as someone whose posts I generally skim past if
you've become involved in a protracted discussion.
I wish I could offer some concrete suggestions, but right now I'm
drawing a blank. But I figured it might at least help to put it
out here in clear print for you. Perhaps some of the other regulars
who've interacted with you over the past several years may have some
suggestions to offer.
-Bill Gawne
Elise Matthesen
Bill Gawne wrote:
>
> Angi:
>
> > > But still, I wish I knew why later, after
> > >others had had a chance to hear my side of things, and after it had
> > >even become quite obvious that there were things he had definitely lied
> > >about, why did so many continue to believe him and disbelieve me? What
> > >is it that I do that makes me so unbelievable?
>
> Aahz:
>
> > Because, quite frankly, you're not a very likable person in many ways,
> > whereas your ex-partner is [...]
>
> Too true, I fear.
>
> Angi, I spent most of the last 5 years with very spotty access to a.p.
> and only have sort of an idea of what all went on. But from what I was
> able to see of the posts, and the group dynamics, I really think Aahz
> has it nailed here.
What they're saying makes sense to me, too. But oh, Angi, if people have
been not believing you when you're telling the truth, and believing the
ex-p because zie can be charming even when telling lies, that's really
dreadful. How hard and frustrating that must be!
For what it's worth, I believe what you say. ( Not that you asked me.
But hey, you and I might not make sense to/of each other, we maybe
don't think alike, but I can and do recognize that you tell the truth.)
I don't think I've read or heard the whole story from your point of view
(I'm pretty sure I haven't read or heard the whole story from anybody's
point of view, frankly, though I have read/heard small parts of it from
more than one person involved), but you just don't come across to me as
somebody who would lie about stuff like that. Misinterpret some nuance,
maybe, but *not* flat out lie.
> Please, realize that I say that with nothing but your posts here to
> go on. In person it may well be that you're sparkling and vivacious
> and wonderful fun to be around. I don't doubt that you have attractive
> qualities. But going only by your net.persona, I have to concur with
> Aahz. You come off as someone whose posts I generally skim past if
> you've become involved in a protracted discussion.
>
> I wish I could offer some concrete suggestions, but right now I'm
> drawing a blank. But I figured it might at least help to put it
> out here in clear print for you. Perhaps some of the other regulars
> who've interacted with you over the past several years may have some
> suggestions to offer.
I wish I had something helpful too. All I know to offer right now is to
say that I believe you.
Angie, I believe you are telling the truth. And I think somebody else isn't.
Elise Anna Matthesen
Aahz Maruch
saying about your partner.]
In article <hor85.51697$Ey2.3...@news1.sttls1.wa.home.com>,
Angi Long <angi...@home.com> wrote:
>
>Seems to me that if anybody was actually manipulative at that time, it
>was him.
<ding!><ding!><ding!><ding!><ding!> Give da woman a seegar!
Do you recall an incident around Christmas (1994 or 1995), where your
partner told you zie was planning to spend Christmas with you and your
family and didn't tell PO until the day before? Do you remember how
everyone here was telling you that was a big warning flag? Why didn't
you listen?
>The question left with me, though, is why PO hasn't ever realized that.
I have no friggin' clue. Probably because it would cost too much. Why
didn't you listen when we were warning you?
>Unless partner lied to them, telling me all along that he agreed to
>what I wanted -- indeed, wanted exactly the same thing himself -- while
>telling others that he had *not* agreed to it. Which I now think is
>what probably was going on. But still, I wish I knew why later, after
>others had had a chance to hear my side of things, and after it had
>even become quite obvious that there were things he had definitely lied
>about, why did so many continue to believe him and disbelieve me? What
>is it that I do that makes me so unbelievable?
Because, quite frankly, you're not a very likable person in many ways,
whereas your ex-partner is -- except to those of us who've gotten wise
to zir tricks. People tend to ignore those they don't like.
>Partner told me it was a Relationship, committed to future-planning
>with me, told me before he spent much time with the kids that if he did
>start to spend a lot of time with them, he'd commit to sticking around
>and never just dropping cold out of their lives, etc. PO didn't like
>that, wanted it to be only sexual, no kind of commitment at all.
Yup. Of course, the problem with that from the PO's end was that they
only had two rules, so PO couldn't insist on it.
>That seems to show some pretty sophisticated planning, on his part, to
>conceal things from her and mislead both of us. I always *want* to
>give everyone the benefit of the doubt, but I don't know what else to
>conclude from this.
I wouldn't say it was *planned*. I think it was more natural
secretiveness, combined with trying to avoid trouble.
>Also, and what really bothers me -- *why* do others keep getting
>incorrect data? Why do they keep believing the incorrect data over
>what I say myself? Why do I get into situations where they'll be given
>the incorrect data? What is it that I do that *confirms*, to their
>minds, the conclusions they've drawn from the incorrect data, so that
>they're never willing to reconsider those conclusions?
Because many people don't like talking to you. I don't like talking to
you. The only reason I persist is because I see you as having a
problem, which may someday with much effort on your part be corrected; I
don't see you as a Bad Person. However, I certainly would veto you as a
partner of any of my partners.
In addition, you have in the past been very bad about picking partners;
I can only hope you've improved or that your luck has improved, but I
don't know enough about your current partner to judge for myself.
--
--- Aahz (Copyright 2000 by aa...@netcom.com)
Androgynous poly kinky vanilla queer het <*> http://www.rahul.net/aahz/
Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6
The best way to get information on Usenet is not to ask a question,
but to post the wrong information. --Aahz
Angi Long
> Angi Long <angi...@home.com> wrote:
> >Seems to me that if anybody was actually manipulative at that time, it
> >was him.
> Do you recall an incident around Christmas (1994 or 1995), where your
> partner told you zie was planning to spend Christmas with you and your
> family and didn't tell PO until the day before? Do you remember how
> everyone here was telling you that was a big warning flag? Why didn't
> you listen?
I think that discussion was on a mailing list, not here, but yes,
I remember. Why didn't I drop him right then? Because I already
had more than a year and a half invested in the relationship.
And that was the *first* "big warning flag" I knew of. I know I
have very poor judgment skills, but I still think it doesn't make
sense to drop someone after the first problem, after that much
time. And of course there were the kids, very attached to him,
and that gave me a lot more reason to try to make it last than
if I had only had myself to worry about.
I'm sure I should have walked away sometime in the next several
months, though. Instead I kept trying to solve the unsolvable
problems. I perseverate, I don't know when to give up on a prob-
lem as unsolvable. I keep thinking I'll be able to solve it if
I just keep trying. I know it's wrong to give up on things too
quickly, and it's also bad to hang on too long. But I have no
clue how to tell where the line should be drawn.
I think it's possible that if I'd had somebody, a friend, coun-
seling me actively to get away from him (and willing to give me
some emotional support through the process, too), I might have
done so sometime in those months. But I didn't have that, and
I think what I got from the newsgroup was not that. Here, it
seems like messages are always so cushioned -- it seems like a
taboo, of sorts, to actually, actively counsel someone to leave
a relationship, unless that person seems to be already saying
that they really want to leave. If it's said, it's said with a
lot of cushioning. And that would never get through to me.
Especially not a few years ago (more recently I've learned a
bit more about language and what people are really trying to
say when they're so roundabout -- a bit more, maybe not a lot).
> >[. . .] why did so many continue to believe him and disbelieve me?
> >What is it that I do that makes me so unbelievable?
> Because, quite frankly, you're not a very likable person in many ways,
Well, I *know* that -- I think disbelieving me and disliking me
are pretty closely linked. They don't like me because I'm not
believable, and they don't believe me because they don't like me.
But *why*? What makes me so unlikeable? What's not to like?
I like myself. I have many of the qualities people supposedly
find likeable -- I'm honest, honorable, straightforward and up
front, very open, intelligent, caring... I try very hard to
please, go out of my way to do nice things for people... I'm a
good mother, and have always been good with other people's kids,
too. I'm not perfect, but all in all I find myself a pretty
likeable person. So what blocks other people from seeing that?
> >Also, and what really bothers me -- *why* do others keep getting
> >incorrect data? Why do they keep believing the incorrect data over
> >what I say myself? Why do I get into situations where they'll be given
> >the incorrect data? What is it that I do that *confirms*, to their
> >minds, the conclusions they've drawn from the incorrect data, so that
> >they're never willing to reconsider those conclusions?
> Because many people don't like talking to you. I don't like talking to
> you. The only reason I persist is because I see you as having a
> problem, which may someday with much effort on your part be corrected; I
> don't see you as a Bad Person. However, I certainly would veto you as a
> partner of any of my partners.
I think you can forget the problem ever being corrected. I'm
trying to make it better, but it's never going to be perfect.
> In addition, you have in the past been very bad about picking partners;
> I can only hope you've improved or that your luck has improved, but I
> don't know enough about your current partner to judge for myself.
I worry, too, for that reason. But so far, so good. :) He's
a good man. We have our complaints about each other, but just
enough to make it feel like it's not too good to be true.
Angi Long
> For what it's worth, I believe what you say. ( Not that you asked me.
> But hey, you and I might not make sense to/of each other, we maybe
> don't think alike, but I can and do recognize that you tell the truth.)
> I don't think I've read or heard the whole story from your point of view
> (I'm pretty sure I haven't read or heard the whole story from anybody's
> point of view, frankly, though I have read/heard small parts of it from
> more than one person involved), but you just don't come across to me as
> somebody who would lie about stuff like that. Misinterpret some nuance,
> maybe, but *not* flat out lie.
Thanks. That means a lot :) And FWIW, I don't think I've had a
problem with not being believed *here*, in general. Misinter-
preted sometimes maybe. It's mainly in the local community that
I used to be a part of, and ex-partner and his other still are,
where I was (am) not believed. (And another community or two or
three before that.)
Stef Maruch
>"Stef Maruch" <st...@baygate.bayarea.net> wrote:
>> Other conclusions are possible. You might conclude that both you and PO
>> acted in a manipulative manner. Or that neither of you did, but that PO
>> incorrectly labeled zir behavior differently from yours.
[...]
>Seems to me that if anybody was actually manipulative at that
>time, it was him.
Yes, at the time, I think a number of us who were hearing about the
situation from you were suggesting that he was manipulating both of you
and playing you off each other. Eric Berne has a name for that: "Let's
You and Him Fight."
>The question left with me, though, is why PO
>hasn't ever realized that.
Maybe she does but she thinks it's worth it. Anyway, at this point she
doesn't seem particularly your concern.
>> Guilt is one of those feelings that comes and goes. If someone's
>> behavior is based on guilt-avoidance, and the guilt goes away, their
>> reason for the behavior also goes away.
>
>Me, too. I think feeling the guilt, when it comes from caring,
>is a good thing -- it's healthy to feel bad about hurting some-
>one you care about. But I think it should be the caring, not
>the guilt itself, that motivates behavior.
And what I am saying is that if one's motivations come from caring, one
might not feel "guilt" per se when one fails to act in a caring way. To
me, it feels like something else -- I guess it feels like "I'm
disappointed in myself." When I feel "guilt" it's usually because I am
*not* motivated by caring but I'm motivated by feeling like I'm going to
get in trouble.
>But it's not so easy to differentiate. If you do something nice
>for someone, you feel good. Of course you do, and you should.
>But does that mean you're doing the nice thing because you care
>about the other person, or are you just doing it to make yourself
>feel good? Maybe a little of both?
I tell the difference by asking myself what thoughts are in my mind when
I feel good. It definitely feels different to me to feel good because I
let a stranger in front of me at the supermarket vs. because I did
something nice for someone I love. The first feels like "I'm being nice
to strangers, pat pat" and the second feels like "I love you."
Do those feel different to you?
>> I guess they can be avoided (not all the time, but sometimes) if you are
>> the type of person who knows yourself and doesn't change quickly. If you
>> talk about changes that are occurring in what you want before you get
>> to the point of really needing those changes to take place, it's easier
>> to negotiate the changes without ultimatums. That's my experience
>> anyway.
>You can know yourself, but you can't ever completely know the
>other person, and how they might change,
Right. I'm not talking about guarantees, I'm talking about tendencies. I
know there is no 100% guarantee that my partner and I will continue to
grow in compatible directions. I do know that because we both seem to
have a tendency to change slowly and to talk a lot while we're doing it
and to have a certain amount of patience, I feel reasonably assured that
we're not terribly likely to have ultimatum-creating situations in our
relationship.
>Example: couple agrees they want children. Trying to have
>children proves traumatic -- pregnancy is hard, or there's infer-
>tility, or first child is stillborn, or whatever. One partner
>changes their mind, doesn't want to try any more. Other partner
>still wants to try. If feelings are strong enough, eventually
>someone might have to give an ultimatum.
Yeah, almost that exact thing happened to me and my partner;
fortunately, we were flexible enough that no ultimatum has been in
immediate danger of occurring (it still might in the future, but I am
reasonably comfortable that it won't).
>> I don't think it's manipulative. But if my partner said "I'm sorry, but
>> I just can't do all the dishes any more, can we negotiate some other way
>> of getting the dishes done -- maybe hire a dishwasher?" I think it would
>> be -- if not manipulative, then somewhat unreasonable -- of me to refuse
>> to consider any such suggestions and just keep on saying "But you
>> PROMISED."
>True. But if dishes were really a bottom-line issue with you,
>and other options didn't work -- you couldn't afford a dish-
>washer or a lot of disposable dishes, or for some reason it
>was just really really important to you that your partner be
>the one to actually wash the dishes themselves -- then you
>might find yourself in the position of having to give an ulti-
>matum.
I can imagine being in the position of needing to give an ultimatum,
yes. I also think there are a lot of things a relationship can do to
lessen the chance of an ultimatum on a make-or-break issue. For example,
one might ask every now and then "are you still OK with doing all the
dishes?" One might think from time to time about whether there are any
possible workarounds other than the partner's doing all the dishes. (For
example, even if the partner has said zie doesn't mind doing all the
dishes, do you now have enough money to afford a dishwasher? perhaps it
would be a nice gift for your partner.) I think you're less likely to be
accused of manipulation if you show in multiple ways that you are
considering your partner's well being throughout the relationship, than
if one thinks that just because something was discussed up front, that
settles it forever.
>And in that position, I would feel that that ultimatum
>was particularly *not* manipulative, because you had, after
>all, been up front about your feelings on that issue from day
>one.
I agree. If someone refuses to compromise on a bottom-line issue that
was stated upfront as such, I am not likely to label it manipulative
(although if I think compromise could have been achieved with relatively
little effort, I might label it stubborn or unreasonable).
>I've found myself in that position, getting called manipula-
>tive for insisting on what had been very up front about need-
>ing in the first place. It seemed to me that others thought
>that I should have been willing to compromise on my most bot-
>tom-line issues, and accept a relationship that would have
>been bad for me.
I think it doesn't matter what "others" think (except your therapist or
your spiritual advisor), only what your partner thinks. You didn't have
the bottom-line agreement with those "others," you had it with your
partner. Even if "others" heard about it, they might not have heard the
whole truth. Also, if your partner calls you manipulative, zie might be
acting defensive (breakups are stressful), so if you hear it from zir,
you might want to think twice about accepting the label.
>still, I wish I knew why later,
>after others had had a chance to hear my side of things, and
>after it had even become quite obvious that there were things
>he had definitely lied about, why did so many continue to be-
>lieve him and disbelieve me? What is it that I do that
>makes me so unbelievable?
Most people are more interested in maintaining their loyalties than in
seeking the truth.
As for what makes you seem unbelievable in general to some people --
it's related to the RAA stuff. You are fond of discussing extreme
situations. It may give people kind of a distorted picture of what your
life is like, or may seem as if you are exaggerating to get sympathy.
>That seems to show some pretty sophisticated planning, on
>his part, to conceal things from her and mislead both of us.
>I always *want* to give everyone the benefit of the doubt,
>but I don't know what else to conclude from this.
I don't think anyone will ever know just how deliberately he was playing
the game, but it seems clear he was playing a game (perhaps because of
what PO calls his fear of confrontation, but for whatever reason, it did
y'all harm).
>> I would not count what "others" say in past relationships and what a
>> partner says "afterward" nearly as strongly as what happens during.
>> "Others" might be getting a completely incorrect idea of what's going
>> on, and "afterwards" partners are often angry at each other and willing
>> to rewrite things so that the breakup was all the ex's fault.
>
>True. But what about what a partner says to others during
>(which I may not find out about until afterward)?
It's impossible to really know what a partner says to others.
>Also, and what really bothers me -- *why* do others keep get-
>ting incorrect data?
One or more of the following:
(1) You and your motives and intentions are hard to understand because
of the differences in how you behave and think compared to other people.
So people interpret you incorrectly.
(2) Based on what I know of your history, you have had several
manipulative partners. You said you used to trust everybody completely,
and manipulative people are probably attracted to that quality (and you
didn't know how to tell whether they were being manipulative).
>Why do they keep believing the incor-
>rect data over what I say myself?
Same reasons as above, plus a tendency for people to care more about
maintaining their loyalties than finding the truth.
>Why do I get into situa-
>tions where they'll be given the incorrect data?
Same reasons as above, plus the more people get involved in the data
exchange, the more likely it will be corrupted anyway, even if it was
perfectly correct to begin with.
>What is it
>that I do that *confirms*, to their minds, the conclusions
>they've drawn from the incorrect data, so that they're never
>willing to reconsider those conclusions?
It's not entirely what you do (most people would rather not worry about
information that doesn't fit their theories), but various things about
your social behavior do somewhat fit the theory of "this is a rude,
thoughtless, and manipulative person." I think other theories fit your
behavior better (e.g., "some autism/asperger related brain difference"),
but those theories are far less widely known. So I think because people
don't understand where you're coming from socially, they are likely to
interpret it using the handy "rude, thoughtless, manipulative person" theory.
--
Stef ** rational/scientific/philosophical/mystical/magical/kitty **
** st...@cat-and-dragon.com <*> http://www.bayarea.net/~stef **
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Elynne
On Wed, 5 Jul 2000, Angi Long wrote:
> I think what I got from the newsgroup was not that. Here, it
> seems like messages are always so cushioned -- it seems like a
> taboo, of sorts, to actually, actively counsel someone to leave
> a relationship, unless that person seems to be already saying
> that they really want to leave. If it's said, it's said with a
> lot of cushioning. And that would never get through to me.
> Especially not a few years ago (more recently I've learned a
> bit more about language and what people are really trying to
> say when they're so roundabout -- a bit more, maybe not a lot).
It's not just this newsgroup. When I was first dating my personal Psycho
Hose Beast, I didn't know until after he'd dumped me that he had been
cheating on me - sleeping with somebody else and specifically lying to me
about it. Most of our mutual "friends" knew, and deliberately kept me in
the dark about it. Afterwards, when one of them finally spilled the beans
and I confronted several of them about it, the unanimous reply was that it
wasn't their business, and they didn't want to "ruin my relationship."
Later, with the same PSB (yeah, I was dumb, I took him back) and a
different set of friends: apparantly everybody in that social circle
thought I should leave him, that he was bad for me, but *nobody* said a
thing to me. When he verbally abused me in front of them, *nobody* stood
up for me against him. When he threatened to kill me one night, and when
I left the house, threatened to follow me and blow up the house I was
hiding in, *nobody* spoke out against me going back to him. It wasn't
until after the relationship was long over that people finally started
telling me that they thought he wasn't any good for me. Well, thanks,
guys.
Most of the time, people won't give their opinions when they think it's
bad news unless you directly ask them, and even then, if they don't trust
you, they'll sidestep the issue. You can't expect other people, no matter
how much you like them, to tell you that there's problems in your
relationship, no matter how obvious they are. It's very rare to have the
kind of real friends who are willing to risk their relationship with *you*
enough to tell you that they think you're making a mistake in your
relationship with somebody else.
-- Elynne, pitching pennies again...
Karl Allen
>> Because, quite frankly, you're not a very likable person in many ways,
>Well, I *know* that -- I think disbelieving me and disliking me
>are pretty closely linked. They don't like me because I'm not
>believable, and they don't believe me because they don't like me.
>But *why*? What makes me so unlikeable? What's not to like?
I have extreme misgivings about this thread as a whole, as it seems like
an easy way to hurt someone's feelings quite badly. I just about choked
when I read Aahz's above words - but there's something to be said for
honesty, I guess. Anyway, I don't personally have strong feelings about
you either way. What I do have residual feelings about, and what I'll guess
many folks who might say "Yeah, Angi's not very likable" would note is the
Great Unpleasantness that swept over this very newsgroup awhile back (geez,
how long has it been now?) involving the disintigration of your relationship
with Elf. I can't right off think of a more bitter, nasty
flame war off the top of my head. People have said meaner things, but typically
as part of a troll or something. The Elf/Angi "Who's to blame?" nastiness
was heartfelt and personal, perhaps because many of those posting had met
or were friends with those involved. I ended up disliking all three of the
major players (I think I even flamed Elf once, despite my personal belief that
the best choice of action was to stay far, far away). That's colored
how I read your posts ever since. That may not be fair, but I'll bet lots of
other people still hold some amount of grudge for the bile that ended up
getting spewed as part of all that.
I will say that you're probably much braver than I am. I don't think I'd
have the courage to ask "What's not to like about me?" I would be afraid
that the answers would be too discouraging...
I remain,
K
Jacob Sommer
Elynne, I think I may have an insight as to why this happens (as opposed
to the fact that it does happen - I have my own examples too).
As a rule of thumb, people don't like being the bearers of bad news. If
one of your friends approached you and told you they thought that the PHB
(wow, Psycho Hose Beasts are really Pointy Haired Bosses! :) and told you
that the PHB was bad news and you shouldn't be dating said PHB, they are
risking you lashing out at them because of *course* you should be dating
the PHB and how *dare* you suggest otherwise - risking a friendship over
something that they may feel you have blinders about. They may have
honestly felt that all that telling you their opinion was going to do
would be to wreck your friendship while not getting you to take any sort
of meaningful (to them) action - like dumping the PHB.
I never said it was a courageous reason, but I see it happen a lot.
Of course, on the flip side one of my ex GFs used to tell coworkers at a
former workplace that I was a bum and insensitive and mean eight ways
form Sunday. They of course told her to dump me, but she would say "No,
I love him, and maybe we can work through it..." <shrug> In my case she
at best grossly exaggerated my bad behaviors while glossing over her own.
And these people never took the time to talk with me.
Sometimes people are scared that way when they don't want to be caught in
the middle.
Jacob
Elise Matthesen
Stef Maruch wrote:
>
> Angi Long <angi...@home.com> wrote:
[...snip...]
>
> >You can know yourself, but you can't ever completely know the
> >other person, and how they might change,
>
> Right. I'm not talking about guarantees, I'm talking about tendencies. I
> know there is no 100% guarantee that my partner and I will continue to
> grow in compatible directions. I do know that because we both seem to
> have a tendency to change slowly and to talk a lot while we're doing it
> and to have a certain amount of patience, I feel reasonably assured that
> we're not terribly likely to have ultimatum-creating situations in our
> relationship.
Ah! Thank you for putting this into words, Stef. "A tendency to change
slowly and to talk a lot while we're doing it and to have a certain
amount of patience" is a very good description of what works well for me
too, only I never fit it into those words. Useful!
The "talk a lot while we're doing it" part is particularly important to
me, when it's a partner (or other closely intertwined person) who is
doing the changing. If I have been a companion to them during the
pondering and decisionmaking process, then I almost always find it much
easier to be aware, patient, supportive, and also to take good care of
myself during what might be stressful time of change.
If they just spring it on me as a done deal, I tend to think that they
don't value me or my support/companionship very highly at all. (I might
be wrong in certain cases, but it is what I tend to think. It's a
conclusion I jump to, alas.) I also tend to think that they do not want
to be aware/patient/supportive in return, if it takes a little while for
me to adjust to the changes they're making and the ripple effects they
have on our relationship.
I can, if I work at it, avoid jumping to either of those conclusions.
But if somebody's repeatedly telling me that nothing's up when I ask
them what's new, and then springing stuff on me, especially as a done
deal, it's very hard for me to keep from feeling like that.
Does it work kind of like that for you too, Stef?
I like the way you put it. I'm gonna save that paragraph and use it for
conversation fodder.
Elise,
pondering the nature of closely intertwined relationships
Jacob Sommer
<some snippage>
> I'm sure I should have walked away sometime in the next several
> months, though. Instead I kept trying to solve the unsolvable
> problems. I perseverate, I don't know when to give up on a prob-
> lem as unsolvable. I keep thinking I'll be able to solve it if
> I just keep trying. I know it's wrong to give up on things too
> quickly, and it's also bad to hang on too long. But I have no
> clue how to tell where the line should be drawn.
Angi, if you don't know where the line should be then I would
suggest (for future times) to either ask a reliable third party
or just draw it yourself. Either way, it's important to know
when to put your foot down.
> I think it's possible that if I'd had somebody, a friend, coun-
> seling me actively to get away from him (and willing to give me
> some emotional support through the process, too), I might have
> done so sometime in those months. But I didn't have that, and
> I think what I got from the newsgroup was not that. Here, it
> seems like messages are always so cushioned -- it seems like a
> taboo, of sorts, to actually, actively counsel someone to leave
> a relationship, unless that person seems to be already saying
> that they really want to leave. If it's said, it's said with a
> lot of cushioning. And that would never get through to me.
> Especially not a few years ago (more recently I've learned a
> bit more about language and what people are really trying to
> say when they're so roundabout -- a bit more, maybe not a lot).
<shrug> That's in part is because it's too damn easy to say
something like that and I suspect people don't want to jump in
with *both* feet in their mouth.
Stef:
> > Because, quite frankly, you're not a very likable person in many ways,
you:
> Well, I *know* that -- I think disbelieving me and disliking me
> are pretty closely linked. They don't like me because I'm not
> believable, and they don't believe me because they don't like me.
Not quite - people may not like you because they don't like some or
several aspects about you and some people will translate that to
not believing. This particular ideal means you don't initially
have credibility problems.
Now, if people truly *do* feel you're not credible and thus come to
dislike you that's a different story. But I just wanted to point
out that it's not quite as endless-looped as you might think.
As to what's likable about you - being pretty new here, I'll come
to my own conclusions in my own time. And if you ask me what my
opinions are, I'll tell you truth.
Stef again:
> > Because many people don't like talking to you. I don't like talking to
> > you. The only reason I persist is because I see you as having a
> > problem, which may someday with much effort on your part be corrected; I
> > don't see you as a Bad Person. However, I certainly would veto you as a
> > partner of any of my partners.
you:
> I think you can forget the problem ever being corrected. I'm
> trying to make it better, but it's never going to be perfect.
I will speak for myself - for myself, the most important thing when
someone is dealing with a personal problem is that they are trying
their best, a full 100% (although a discount is allowed on vacation
days :). At the same time, this does not mean that I won't count
the problem when it comes to looking at the possibility of a
relationship. Effort counts a lot tho.
Jacob
Angi Long
Helpful stuff. Thank you.
> Angi Long <angi...@home.com> wrote:
> >The question left with me, though, is why PO
> >hasn't ever realized that.
> Maybe she does but she thinks it's worth it. Anyway, at this point she
> doesn't seem particularly your concern.
But she still does concern me, because I do have to keep inter-
acting with her (today, for example, I have to go pick up my
daughter from her, and the dad won't be home as he's at work
(she spent the night after watching the fireworks with them,
and the alternative was for him to wake her up early to bring
her home)). I always just try to keep it friendly and brief.
But once in a while something comes up that I have to discuss
with her, like the "step-daddy" thing. And at three, my
daughter has already been telling me that she knows that her
dad and stepmom are "mad" at me and "don't like" me. Of
course that troubles me.
> >Me, too. I think feeling the guilt, when it comes from caring,
> >is a good thing -- it's healthy to feel bad about hurting some-
> >one you care about. But I think it should be the caring, not
> >the guilt itself, that motivates behavior.
> And what I am saying is that if one's motivations come from caring, one
> might not feel "guilt" per se when one fails to act in a caring way. To
> me, it feels like something else -- I guess it feels like "I'm
> disappointed in myself." When I feel "guilt" it's usually because I am
> *not* motivated by caring but I'm motivated by feeling like I'm going to
> get in trouble.
What's your definition of "guilt?" I would call "I'm disappointed
in myself" guilt. That's pretty much how I would define guilt:
the feeling of disappointment and regret that one has done wrong,
or failed to do right. I would call "I'm going to get in trouble"
fear, not guilt.
> >But it's not so easy to differentiate. If you do something nice
> >for someone, you feel good. Of course you do, and you should.
> >But does that mean you're doing the nice thing because you care
> >about the other person, or are you just doing it to make yourself
> >feel good? Maybe a little of both?
> I tell the difference by asking myself what thoughts are in my mind when
> I feel good. It definitely feels different to me to feel good because I
> let a stranger in front of me at the supermarket vs. because I did
> something nice for someone I love. The first feels like "I'm being nice
> to strangers, pat pat" and the second feels like "I love you."
> Do those feel different to you?
It feels different, yes -- there are additional components if it's
someone I know and care about on a personal level, as opposed to
someone I only care about as a fellow human being. But in either
case, I believe I'm primarily motivated by caring. If anything,
to me that "pure" motivation is more clear with the stranger. With
the person I care about, in addition to the thought "I'm being nice
to them," there are also the thoughts "this will help us get along
more smoothly" and "now they'll be more motivated to do nice things
for me." There's more potential benefit for *me* in the situation,
so my reasons for being nice may not be as "pure." With the
stranger, the only benefit to myself is that nice "I done good"
feeling.
I don't think it's possible for most people (probably for anyone)
to sort out their exact and complete reasons for doing something.
I believe that I act mainly out of caring, but I *do* also get
those "done good" feelings, and I *do* also know the benefits to
me of doing nice things for people I know, and I'm sure those
things also help motivate me. Maybe they even cause me to do
things that I wouldn't otherwise do *just* out of pure caring.
But I'm disturbed by people who do things *only* or mainly for
themselves. And people who believe that all "good deeds" are
really motivated by self-interest, because these people probably
believe that about others because that's how their own minds work.
> I can imagine being in the position of needing to give an ultimatum,
> yes. I also think there are a lot of things a relationship can do to
> lessen the chance of an ultimatum on a make-or-break issue. For example,
> one might ask every now and then "are you still OK with doing all the
> dishes?" One might think from time to time about whether there are any
> possible workarounds other than the partner's doing all the dishes. (For
> example, even if the partner has said zie doesn't mind doing all the
> dishes, do you now have enough money to afford a dishwasher? perhaps it
> would be a nice gift for your partner.) I think you're less likely to be
> accused of manipulation if you show in multiple ways that you are
> considering your partner's well being throughout the relationship, than
> if one thinks that just because something was discussed up front, that
> settles it forever.
This all seems to assume that you know that doing the dishes is at
least somewhat unpleasant for your partner. But if my partner had
only ever told me that they didn't find doing the dishes to be un-
pleasant at all, in fact they liked it, then it would never occur
to me to think of ways to get them out of doing the dishes.
I do agree that discussing something up front does not necessarily
settle it for all time. But if I haven't been told that the other
person is unhappy with something, and if I'm not unhappy with it,
then it would never occur to me to bring it up. Why should it?
Of course things we're happy with will get discussed all the time,
but there are an infinite number of such things, so the chance is
low that I would ever happen to bring up the one thing they might
not (any longer) be happy with. How would you know to keep asking
about something, if you've had no indication from the other person
that they might sometime become unhappy with that thing?
I had accusations in my last relationship that I didn't go and
talk to partner's other when she was becoming unhappy with the si-
tuation. But by the time I was *told* she was unhappy, she had
been unhappy for a long time. Maybe it's one of those things
where I was expected to be able to read subtle nonverbal signals
which to me are forever a mystery. Or maybe she thought I was
being told about her unhappiness all along, when I wasn't. But
the expectation that I go talk to her when she was unhappy always
seemed so unfair and impossible to me. I don't understand why it
would be expected to *occur* to me to ask her about something
when I have no indication whatsoever that there even *may* be
anything at all bothering her.
Now, I hear that I'm supposed to ask once in a while (how often
is once in a while?) how the relationship is going in general
for someone. (I don't mean just now from you here -- I've heard
it before. Just never before the tail end of that relationship.)
Okay, I can do that. I just never knew it before -- it never
would have *occurred* to me. I always thought that if nobody
told me anything was wrong, that meant everything was pretty
much okay.
> I think it doesn't matter what "others" think (except your therapist or
> your spiritual advisor), only what your partner thinks.
It matters if I ever want to be part of a community or keep a
group of friends (or even friendly acquaintances).
> You didn't have
> the bottom-line agreement with those "others," you had it with your
> partner. Even if "others" heard about it, they might not have heard the
> whole truth. Also, if your partner calls you manipulative, zie might be
> acting defensive (breakups are stressful), so if you hear it from zir,
> you might want to think twice about accepting the label.
Well, I don't accept the label... I know it's not really what I
*am*. But I know it's a pattern, that I get thought of as "mani-
pulative" and similar things repeatedly, by different people in
different communities. I want to find out how to stop that.
Of course it's compounded by the fact that a reputation from pre-
vious communities will follow me to the next. That makes it as
if I'm "guilty until proven innocent" from the start. And inno-
cense is a *very* hard thing to prove.
> Most people are more interested in maintaining their loyalties than in
> seeking the truth.
I guess so. So how do I get people to feel some sort of loyalty
to me, as well as to whoever decides to take a dislike to me?
> As for what makes you seem unbelievable in general to some people --
> it's related to the RAA stuff. You are fond of discussing extreme
> situations. It may give people kind of a distorted picture of what your
> life is like, or may seem as if you are exaggerating to get sympathy.
That's probably true in situations like here, the newsgroup. But
I don't get into many of those kinds of discussions face to face.
Maybe when there is overlap between the meatspace community and
people who read newsgroups or mailing lists where thse discussions
happen, it's a factor in the meatspace community too. But this
has been going on all my life, everywhere. Elementary school,
high school, other communities before I had anything to do with
the internet, places where I can't remember ever doing any sort of
"debating" with anyone.
But I do at some point often discuss my own life with someone in
a community. Anecdotes, at least, from my own life do get told.
Is my own life such an "exreme situation" that talking about it
turns people off?
Some of the worst "debates" that I can remember happening here
with me were when I was discussing things from my own life,
which other people were calling "straw men" or the like.
> >> I would not count what "others" say in past relationships and what a
> >> partner says "afterward" nearly as strongly as what happens during.
> >True. But what about what a partner says to others during
> >(which I may not find out about until afterward)?
> It's impossible to really know what a partner says to others.
I know, but it's possible to get the gist.
> >Also, and what really bothers me -- *why* do others keep get-
> >ting incorrect data?
> (1) You and your motives and intentions are hard to understand because
> of the differences in how you behave and think compared to other people.
> So people interpret you incorrectly.
That's probably true. I know others don't always read my non-
verbals correctly. I'm constantly frustrated that there have
only ever been a few people who have taken that to mean that
they can't read me. Most people take it to mean I'm lying
about my own feelings. They put more trust in their own abi-
lities to "read" people than in my words. I don't know how
to get around that. I've tried telling people up front that
I don't have the right nonverbal "signals" and that they pro-
bably won't be able to read me correctly (or I them), and
they nod and smile and appear to acknowledge it, and then
proceed to forget it.
> (2) Based on what I know of your history, you have had several
> manipulative partners. You said you used to trust everybody completely,
> and manipulative people are probably attracted to that quality (and you
> didn't know how to tell whether they were being manipulative).
I think that's true. I wish I knew the way around it. I
have no idea how to know whether people are trustworthy or
not. All I have to go on is what they say, and what others
say about them. I don't have a "lie detector" that tells me
when someone is acting suspicious. I've tried picking part-
ners who seemed to have good reputations, about whom people
said good things, people highly trusted by other people.
But I think now that the reason these people were so highly
trusted was because they were such successful manipulators
that they'd manipulated *everyone* into trusting them. So
when they do choose to hurt someone, they get away with it.
One partner even told me that this was the way he thought.
(After I was deeply involved with him, of course, not before.)
He was careful to keep a good reputation, so he could reap the
benefits of being liked and trusted. He did not for one
minute actually care about any of the people who trusted him
(by his own admission). And only the fear of the loss of
those benefits kept him from doing truly horrendous things.
Of course when he happened upon me, he knew that I would never
be believed over him, so he felt free to fuck with me, even to
confide in me his motivations and some horrendous things he
had done (and how he'd gotten away with them) in the past.
So how I avoid these people? Is there even any such thing as
a person with a good reputation who is actually decent and
trustworthy?
> It's not entirely what you do (most people would rather not worry about
> information that doesn't fit their theories), but various things about
> your social behavior do somewhat fit the theory of "this is a rude,
> thoughtless, and manipulative person." I think other theories fit your
> behavior better (e.g., "some autism/asperger related brain difference"),
> but those theories are far less widely known. So I think because people
> don't understand where you're coming from socially, they are likely to
> interpret it using the handy "rude, thoughtless, manipulative person" theory.
I see the truth in that, and I have thought that if I could
explain my differences to people, it would help them to be
more understanding when I do things which appear to them to
be "rude" or "thoughtless." Unfortunately, the evidence to
date does not suggest that it would help much. I *have*
started out relationships in the past explaining that I don't
read "signals" very well and would not know if anything was
wrong unless I was directly told, and asking them to tell me
right away if anything was wrong. (After the point when I
understood that much about myself.) It hasn't helped -- if I
remind someone of it later, I get "that's no excuse." And
I've tried explaining Asperger's to someone I'd had troubles
with in the past and who had witnessed other troubles, and
who I'd come back eventually to being friends with again.
But he took it as making excuses and trying to avoid respon-
sibility, and said it was absolutely wrong for me to ever
expect anyone to alter their communication style or their
expectations for me, that it was entirely my responsibility
to learn how to use others' language and live up to their
expectations. He would not believe that there are some
things I probably *can't* learn, as surely as a deaf person
can't learn to hear. As far as I could see, in asking some-
one to take my differences into account, I *would* be taking
responsibility for avoiding misunderstandings, the same way
a deaf person might take that responsibility by asking
people to be sure to speak where they can lip-read and to
write things down or sign if they want to be certain they
are understood correctly.
So is it a good idea to keep trying this, when so far it's
had a pretty high failure rate?
Aahz Maruch
Elynne <ely...@wolfenet.com> wrote:
>
>It's not just this newsgroup. When I was first dating my personal Psycho
>Hose Beast, I didn't know until after he'd dumped me that he had been
>cheating on me - sleeping with somebody else and specifically lying to me
>about it. Most of our mutual "friends" knew, and deliberately kept me in
>the dark about it. Afterwards, when one of them finally spilled the beans
>and I confronted several of them about it, the unanimous reply was that it
>wasn't their business, and they didn't want to "ruin my relationship."
I've been the "friend" and I've spoken up. Every time, it was made
clear to me that my interference was not wanted, except when I was a
*very* close friend. Other people who've had my experience are probably
just as careful to stay away.
Josh Jasper
Karl Allen wrote:
>
> In article <DaC85.52732$Ey2.3...@news1.sttls1.wa.home.com> "Angi Long"
> <angi...@home.com> writes:
> >> Because, quite frankly, you're not a very likable person in many ways,
>
> >Well, I *know* that -- I think disbelieving me and disliking me
> >are pretty closely linked. They don't like me because I'm not
> >believable, and they don't believe me because they don't like me.
> >But *why*? What makes me so unlikeable? What's not to like?
>
> I have extreme misgivings about this thread as a whole, as it seems like
> an easy way to hurt someone's feelings quite badly. I just about choked
> when I read Aahz's above words - but there's something to be said for
> honesty, I guess. Anyway, I don't personally have strong feelings about
> you either way. What I do have residual feelings about, and what I'll guess
> many folks who might say "Yeah, Angi's not very likable" would note is the
> Great Unpleasantness that swept over this very newsgroup awhile back (geez,
> how long has it been now?) involving the disintigration of your relationship
> with Elf. I can't right off think of a more bitter, nasty
> flame war off the top of my head. People have said meaner things, but typically
> as part of a troll or something. The Elf/Angi "Who's to blame?" nastiness
> was heartfelt and personal, perhaps because many of those posting had met
> or were friends with those involved. I ended up disliking all three of the
> major players (I think I even flamed Elf once, despite my personal belief that
> the best choice of action was to stay far, far away). That's colored
> how I read your posts ever since. That may not be fair, but I'll bet lots of
> other people still hold some amount of grudge for the bile that ended up
> getting spewed as part of all that.
>
> I will say that you're probably much braver than I am. I don't think I'd
> have the courage to ask "What's not to like about me?" I would be afraid
> that the answers would be too discouraging...
>
I suspect that I've got things about me that are not too likable to
some people. I've gotten into tiffs with people on this newsgroup,
Aahz included. I think our big kerfluffle was on the one of the poly
mailing lists, am I right, Aahz? Despite that, I think Aahz sorta likes
me. If not, he's got a really odd way of acting towards me in public
for someone who doesn't like me.
I've done things in the past to piss people off. I'm
sometimes clueless, cranky, hyper kinetic, I have an annoying tendency
to babble, and sometimes override people trying to get a word in
edgewise. Good lord, you'd think with all these flaws, I'd be a pariah.
But I'm not. And those are just a few of my flaws. I'm not
afraid to admit to them, nor ashamed to say I'm working on them the
best I can.
--
Puck: Sometime a horse I'll be, sometime a hound, a hog, a headless
bear, sometime a fire; and neigh, and bark, and grunt, and roar, and
burn, like horse, hound, hog, bear, fire, at every turn.
--
A Midsummer Night's Dream Act 3, Scene 1
Angi Long
> I've done things in the past to piss people off. I'm
> sometimes clueless, cranky, hyper kinetic, I have an annoying tendency
> to babble, and sometimes override people trying to get a word in
> edgewise. Good lord, you'd think with all these flaws, I'd be a pariah.
> But I'm not.
<comforting tone> That's okay. I'm sure there are people who
dislike you. You just need to find them. <smiley>
Helpfully,
piranha
>time, it was him.
gosh! you think? *sigh*. angi, people _told_ you this a
long time ago. i know i did, and i wasn't the only one.
>The question left with me, though, is why PO
>hasn't ever realized that.
why didn't YOU? well, i know why not -- you said so at the
time. you had invested in him. and so you decided to not
listen to the warning signals, nor to what people here said
(admittedly, us being relative strangers, there is really no
reason why you _should_ per se listen), and to throw good
emotion after bad.
she is in quite a similar situation from that PoV -- she has
lots invested in the relationship.
aside from that she might also be getting what she wants out
of it. i don't know her, nor have i read enough of her posts
to have formed an opinion on her character, so i don't know
whether they're two birds of a feather, or she's just not yet
been fucked over enough by him to recognize what an ass he is.
(obviously i've formed an opinion of _him_, and i've never
hidden it.)
>You can know yourself, but you can't ever completely know the
>other person, and how they might change, or seem to change as
>other sides of them come out over time. And you can't ever think
>of *everything* in the beginning. Something might come up later
>which you had taken for granted in the beginning. Also, however
>unchanging you normally are, things can still happen which change
>you.
sure. and whether i stay with a partner long-term depends on
how zie handles the rocks that appear in our path.
>But still, I wish I knew why later,
>after others had had a chance to hear my side of things, and
>after it had even become quite obvious that there were things
>he had definitely lied about, why did so many continue to be-
>lieve him and disbelieve me? What is it that I do that
>makes me so unbelievable?
warning: bluntness ahead. no intent to hurt you.
he's a charmer, and you're not. he's entertaining, and you
are not. he's got the stuff kib*s are made of, you have a
pitbull gene instead.
he's got qualities that make him easily likeable. you have
some qualities that make it very hard to like you (you have
IMO some very good qualities too, but the surface is rough,
and it takes something more than surface appreciation to get
to like you).
you've grown on me over the years. (aahz has too, just to
put that a little in perspective.) but it takes a lot of
effort for me not to get frustrated with you and want to
shake you. some of your statements about feelings make you
sound like a superduper-drama-queen (i found that post very
enlightening where you talked about having maybe only three
settings for feelings; 1, 3 and 10, or something like that --
it explains a lot).
it's sad so many people fall for his charm, and overlook the
depth in you. i am sorry; it must be terribly frustrating
and painful to be in your shoes.
good manipulators, good con artists are well-liked all around.
they have to be, you know. how else can they ply their trade?
>I did have conversations directly with a few of them. Others
>I only heard about through the grapevine, true. I wouldn't
>put so much stock in PO's telling me (still, recently) that I
>am "a very hated person" (meaning hated by many, not just
>very hated by her) if I hadn't seen enough of it directly my-
>self.
full of shit, the both of you. people do not hate that ea-
sily. people may not like you much, but most have feelings
in more gradations than 3, and "hate" is pretty much an 11
-- people reserve that for those who abuse them as children,
not for somebody who's merely not the most charming, percep-
tive, and entertaining person around.
at worst, probably a number of them felt required to take
sides, and didn't want to, so they've distanced themselves
from you.
[...]
>That seems to show some pretty sophisticated planning, on
>his part, to conceal things from her and mislead both of us.
yes. i think he's quite the manipulator.
>I always *want* to give everyone the benefit of the doubt,
>but I don't know what else to conclude from this.
that you need to calibrate your trust meter. there is ab-
solutely no reason to trust everyone. not even if you love
-- some people canot be trusted with certain things, period,
and it's a head-in-the-sand strategy to imagine you ought
to.
how logical is it? you've fallen on your face with this
trust thing of yours several times, badly. what does it
take to modify the strategy? you don't need to get rid of
it, just create some gradations of trust. wait with in-
vesting everything until you know more.
and don't get involved with people whose partners dislike
you this much. break up when you find out and if communi-
cations can't be established directly. that hurts, yes,
but it is the saner choice. investment, shmestment -- you
threw bunches of emotion at somebody who was not worthy,
after seeing very clear warnings that he was not worthy,
and after knowing you had not a chance in hell to ever be
accepted as a co-primary by his wife.
learn to listen to warning signals. you heard them -- i
know because you reported them here, and people told you
how bad this sounded. part of you didn't want to listen.
make yourself listen.
-piranha
Angi Long
> <angi...@home.com> writes:
> >> Because, quite frankly, you're not a very likable person in many ways,
> >Well, I *know* that [ . . . ]
> >But *why*? What makes me so unlikeable? What's not to like?
> I have extreme misgivings about this thread as a whole, as it seems like
> an easy way to hurt someone's feelings quite badly. I just about choked
> when I read Aahz's above words - but there's something to be said for
> honesty, I guess.
That's okay, I'm not hurt, I'm trying to learn. Aahz probably has
some understanding by now that if it's not said directly, there's
a good chance I won't get the message.
> Anyway, I don't personally have strong feelings about
> you either way. What I do have residual feelings about, and what I'll guess
> many folks who might say "Yeah, Angi's not very likable" would note is the
> Great Unpleasantness that swept over this very newsgroup awhile back (geez,
> how long has it been now?) involving the disintigration of your relationship
> with Elf. I can't right off think of a more bitter, nasty
> flame war off the top of my head. People have said meaner things, but typically
> as part of a troll or something. The Elf/Angi "Who's to blame?" nastiness
> was heartfelt and personal, perhaps because many of those posting had met
> or were friends with those involved. I ended up disliking all three of the
> major players (I think I even flamed Elf once, despite my personal belief that
> the best choice of action was to stay far, far away). That's colored
> how I read your posts ever since. That may not be fair, but I'll bet lots of
> other people still hold some amount of grudge for the bile that ended up
> getting spewed as part of all that.
That doesn't explain the past before that time, but I'm sure you're
right. I didn't like the way those threads went on and on, either.
I never wanted it to be like that, but I didn't seem to have any
power at the time to stop it, either. I was never exaggerating
about how ill and terrified I was at the time. It's truly by luck
alone -- a miracle, if you believe in miracles -- that my daughter
and I both lived to the birth, and that my family stayed intact and
kept our home. And arguing with other people who were voicing all
the doubts that were in my own mind was the only way I had at the
time to keep myself from giving up entirely and sinking into the
certainty that I was evil and everything my family and I were going
through was all my own fault, that I *deserved* it. I think if I
had not had those threads to keep me *fighting*, it's possible that
I might have killed myself as soon as the baby was born. The chil-
dren depending on me might not have been enough to keep me going,
right then. Maybe it wasn't the best way to fight those demons,
but it was what was available to me at the time. Later I hoped it
would be forgiven, when all those threads were dropped cold as soon
as the baby was born. *shrug* That was over three years ago now,
and I can't change it.
Aahz Maruch
Jacob Sommer <len...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>Stef:
>> > Because, quite frankly, you're not a very likable person in many ways,
Please be careful with your attributions. That was me, not Stef.
songbird
"Angi Long" <angi...@home.com> wrote:
...
> And at three, my
> daughter has already been telling me that she knows that her
> dad and stepmom are "mad" at me and "don't like" me. Of
> course that troubles me.
as a child who's seen this too much can i just say to you
that you should encourage her to use that famous one word
reply that children are good at using? have her ask them
"why?" stay out of it, tell her that you're not interested
in hearing their opinions (but that you are _very_ interested
in hearing _her_ opinions) parroted back at you.
otherwise you're being played and it will continue forever
unless you put a stop to it early.
and whatever you do don't badmouth her father in front
of her, to her or otherwise. if he is a bad person trust
that eventually and in her own way she will learn this.
the only reason you have to interfere is if she is being
abused. otherwise stay out. it's both a child power game
and a nasty poison better not spread around.
songbird *peep*
Ryk
>In article <39638298...@earthlink.net>,
>Jacob Sommer <len...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>>Stef:
>>> > Because, quite frankly, you're not a very likable person in many ways,
>
>Please be careful with your attributions. That was me, not Stef.
I could tell even without the attribution ;-)
Ryk
Martin Maney
> "Aahz Maruch" <aa...@netcom.com> wrote:
>> Do you recall an incident around Christmas (1994 or 1995), where your
>> partner told you zie was planning to spend Christmas with you and your
>> family and didn't tell PO until the day before? Do you remember how
>> everyone here was telling you that was a big warning flag? Why didn't
>> you listen?
> I think that discussion was on a mailing list, not here, but yes,
I think Aahz is right, because that was part of one of the biggest ongoing
dramas here. 94-95 would be back when Cally and I were courting - not that
either of us thought of it that way at the time - and one thing we spent a
lot of our time together doing was reading alt.poly. Possibly it was also
discussed on a mailing list, but I'm as sure as I can be, with dejanews's
archives offline, that I remember this from alt.poly.
> I'm sure I should have walked away sometime in the next several
> months, though. Instead I kept trying to solve the unsolvable
<holds head> Oh, yes. It was painful to hear about it, sometimes. Often.
Most of the time, especially as it went on.
>> Because, quite frankly, you're not a very likable person in many ways,
> Well, I *know* that -- I think disbelieving me and disliking me
> are pretty closely linked.
Hmmm, but which is cause and which is effect?
> They don't like me because I'm not
> believable, and they don't believe me because they don't like me.
I'm inclined to doubt it's as symmetrical as that sounds, though once the
dislike is established I think they would reinforce each other that way.
> But *why*? What makes me so unlikeable? What's not to like?
> I like myself. I have many of the qualities people supposedly
> find likeable -- I'm honest, honorable, straightforward and up
> front, very open, intelligent, caring... I try very hard to
> please, go out of my way to do nice things for people... I'm a
> good mother, and have always been good with other people's kids,
> too. I'm not perfect, but all in all I find myself a pretty
> likeable person. So what blocks other people from seeing that?
I think there's a strong connection to the issues being grappled with
recently in the threads about debate/discussion, although they all seem to
have gotten rather snarled. Still, it might be worth considering that
perhaps the problem has a lot to do with your conversational style; even if
you think you're having a pleasant, relaxed conversation, if the other
party(s) have a very different perception of it... Well, they may find it
easy to overlook those other nice traits, or, if the dislike comes along
quickly enough, never see them clearly in the first place.
Aahz, does this feel at all on target?
Angi, I was just rereading that list of admirable qualities, and I'm not so
sure that those are things that make a person *likable*. Oh, their
opposites - dishonesty, etc. - may well make a person less likable, but I
think that these are things that would make someone, oh, *admirable* seems
like the best word for it. And I know that I have admired some folks
without much *liking* them.
>> Because many people don't like talking to you. I don't like talking to
>> you. The only reason I persist is because I see you as having a
>> problem,
MAS strikes again. :-)
> I think you can forget the problem ever being corrected. I'm
> trying to make it better, but it's never going to be perfect.
Perfection is a target; its what you aim at, knowing that you will fall
short. Even if you know you're going to fall *very* short, it's still the
best landmark to steer by.
martin
hoping he's not getting sententious because of age
but only the lateness of the hour
Stef Maruch
>The "talk a lot while we're doing it" part is particularly important to
>me, when it's a partner (or other closely intertwined person) who is
>doing the changing. If I have been a companion to them during the
>pondering and decisionmaking process, then I almost always find it much
>easier to be aware, patient, supportive, and also to take good care of
>myself during what might be stressful time of change.
Same here. I guess there is something to be said, after all, in favor of
my tendency to "pre-worry" about things. :-)
>If they just spring it on me as a done deal, I tend to think that they
>don't value me or my support/companionship very highly at all. (I might
>be wrong in certain cases, but it is what I tend to think.
That may be one of the conclusions I jump to.
>I also tend to think that they do not want
>to be aware/patient/supportive in return, if it takes a little while for
>me to adjust to the changes they're making and the ripple effects they
>have on our relationship.
I don't ask for much awareness/patience/supportiveness from most people.
If I ask someone for it, it means I trust them tremendously, and in
order to trust them I absolutely cannot think that they are failing to
fill me in on what's going on in the little corners of their lives.
>I can, if I work at it, avoid jumping to either of those conclusions.
>But if somebody's repeatedly telling me that nothing's up when I ask
>them what's new, and then springing stuff on me, especially as a done
>deal, it's very hard for me to keep from feeling like that.
>
>Does it work kind of like that for you too, Stef?
Yes, although fortunately it's a dim memory, the kind of relationship
where I am constantly asking someone what's up and receiving little
feedback until suddenly there is a New Shape to their life. What I have
now are a few relationships where I rarely feel surprised by what the
person's thinking, and a few relationships where I frequently feel
slightly behind on the news. I am closer to the former than to the
latter. Of course, since I am not as close to the latter, they tend to
be somewhat behind on *my* news, so I am not going to blame any
particular person for creating this situation.
>I like the way you put it. I'm gonna save that paragraph and use it for
>conversation fodder.
Thanks! *smile*
--
Stef ** rational/scientific/philosophical/mystical/magical/kitty **
** st...@cat-and-dragon.com <*> http://www.bayarea.net/~stef **
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Why Did the Chicken Cross the Road ?
Eclectic: Because it seemed right to her at the time. She used
some Egyptian style corn and a Celtic sounding word for the road
and incorporated some Native American elements into her Corn-name,
Chicken-Who-Dances-and-Runs-with-the-Wolves.
Angi Long
> > daughter has already been telling me that she knows that her
> > dad and stepmom are "mad" at me and "don't like" me. Of
> > course that troubles me.
> as a child who's seen this too much can i just say to you
> that you should encourage her to use that famous one word
> reply that children are good at using? have her ask them
> "why?" stay out of it, tell her that you're not interested
> in hearing their opinions (but that you are _very_ interested
> in hearing _her_ opinions) parroted back at you.
Thing is, I don't know whether it's anything they're saying to
her or even around her, or whether she's just magically picking
up on their attitudes. My bet is on the latter, though. Kids
are so observant, and I don't think this one shares my social
lacks at all. She just *notices* things. Maybe she's noticed
my frustrations with them, too... but if so, she hasn't said
anything to me, and I think she probably would.
What I usually do is just tell her that it's okay for people to
be mad at each other sometimes, everybody gets mad at each other
sometimes, and also that nobody is mad at *her*.
> and whatever you do don't badmouth her father in front
> of her, to her or otherwise. if he is a bad person trust
> that eventually and in her own way she will learn this.
> the only reason you have to interfere is if she is being
> abused. otherwise stay out. it's both a child power game
> and a nasty poison better not spread around.
Yeah, I definitely agree with this.
Stef Maruch
>"Stef Maruch" <st...@baygate.bayarea.net> wrote:
>
>Helpful stuff. Thank you.
You're welcome.
>> Angi Long <angi...@home.com> wrote:
>> >The question left with me, though, is why PO
>> >hasn't ever realized that.
>
>> Maybe she does but she thinks it's worth it. Anyway, at this point she
>> doesn't seem particularly your concern.
>
>But she still does concern me, because I do have to keep inter-
>acting with her
True.
>I always just try to keep it friendly and brief.
>But once in a while something comes up that I have to discuss
>with her, like the "step-daddy" thing.
I don't have much advice on how to handle such interactions. Generic
advice would be to proceed with caution and get reality checks from
other people on anything important. (Is your handfasted-partner someone
you can get reality checks from on this? Is he good at understanding
people?)
>And at three, my
>daughter has already been telling me that she knows that her
>dad and stepmom are "mad" at me and "don't like" me. Of
>course that troubles me.
Yuck. I'm not a parent, and I totally don't understand stuffing
children's heads full of things like that, but perhaps it is harder to
avoid than I imagine. I don't know what to do about that, either. I
guess I would say to a kid "sometimes people don't like each other, and
don't agree, but they have to get along anyway." For whatever that's
worth.
>> And what I am saying is that if one's motivations come from caring, one
>> might not feel "guilt" per se when one fails to act in a caring way. To
>> me, it feels like something else -- I guess it feels like "I'm
>> disappointed in myself." When I feel "guilt" it's usually because I am
>> *not* motivated by caring but I'm motivated by feeling like I'm going to
>> get in trouble.
>
>What's your definition of "guilt?" I would call "I'm disappointed
>in myself" guilt. That's pretty much how I would define guilt:
>the feeling of disappointment and regret that one has done wrong,
>or failed to do right. I would call "I'm going to get in trouble"
>fear, not guilt.
I guess we have different definitions. To me guilt always has a
component of fear, and disappointment / regret is another feeling.
>> I tell the difference by asking myself what thoughts are in my mind when
>> I feel good. It definitely feels different to me to feel good because I
>> let a stranger in front of me at the supermarket vs. because I did
>> something nice for someone I love. The first feels like "I'm being nice
>> to strangers, pat pat" and the second feels like "I love you."
>
>> Do those feel different to you?
>
>It feels different, yes -- there are additional components if it's
>someone I know and care about on a personal level, as opposed to
>someone I only care about as a fellow human being. But in either
>case, I believe I'm primarily motivated by caring. If anything,
>to me that "pure" motivation is more clear with the stranger. With
>the person I care about, in addition to the thought "I'm being nice
>to them," there are also the thoughts "this will help us get along
>more smoothly" and "now they'll be more motivated to do nice things
>for me." There's more potential benefit for *me* in the situation,
>so my reasons for being nice may not be as "pure." With the
>stranger, the only benefit to myself is that nice "I done good"
>feeling.
I see your point. I am nice to strangers mostly when I am in a good
mood. I feel like my mood is expansive and I have some good mood to give
away. Maybe I could say I have better access to my reserve of caring
than I usually do (when I am in a more self-absorbed mood).
>But I'm disturbed by people who do things *only* or mainly for
>themselves.
Me too. I think either they are not really seeing the whole picture, or
I think they're just plain psychopaths.
>And people who believe that all "good deeds" are
>really motivated by self-interest, because these people probably
>believe that about others because that's how their own minds work.
I can see playing an intellectual game where one interprets all good
deeds as "motivated by self-interest." But to me it would be only one
facet of the whole diamond. I would be "disturbed," as you say, by
someone who limited zirself to the one facet all the time and didn't
look at the other facets of social interactions too.
>> I can imagine being in the position of needing to give an ultimatum,
>> yes. I also think there are a lot of things a relationship can do to
>> lessen the chance of an ultimatum on a make-or-break issue. For example,
>> one might ask every now and then "are you still OK with doing all the
>> dishes?" One might think from time to time about whether there are any
>> possible workarounds other than the partner's doing all the dishes. (For
>> example, even if the partner has said zie doesn't mind doing all the
>> dishes, do you now have enough money to afford a dishwasher? perhaps it
>> would be a nice gift for your partner.) I think you're less likely to be
>> accused of manipulation if you show in multiple ways that you are
>> considering your partner's well being throughout the relationship, than
>> if one thinks that just because something was discussed up front, that
>> settles it forever.
>This all seems to assume that you know that doing the dishes is at
>least somewhat unpleasant for your partner. But if my partner had
>only ever told me that they didn't find doing the dishes to be un-
>pleasant at all, in fact they liked it, then it would never occur
>to me to think of ways to get them out of doing the dishes.
I see your point, but if doing dishes were unpleasant or impossible for
me (and if it weren't then why would I insist that I not do them?) then
I would continue to consider from time to time whether it might have
become unpleasant or difficult for my partner. In fact I make it a point
of asking in general every now and then "Are you OK with our living
arrangement / relationship? Is there anything we should discuss
changing?" My primary and I do that once or twice a year, and we go over
a lot of stuff, even stuff that we're pretty sure we still agree on. I
think that keeps the machinery oiled so that if something does come up
in the meantime, it's more comfortable bringing it up.
Doing that just seems to make it less likely that surprises will occur.
>I do agree that discussing something up front does not necessarily
>settle it for all time. But if I haven't been told that the other
>person is unhappy with something, and if I'm not unhappy with it,
>then it would never occur to me to bring it up. Why should it?
It would occur to me to bring it up -- not by itself, but as a part of
our whole arrangement -- simply because I know that people change and I
know that people don't always immediately bring up things they're
becoming unhappy with. It's just a good idea to have some general
discussion sessions.
>Of course things we're happy with will get discussed all the time,
>but there are an infinite number of such things, so the chance is
>low that I would ever happen to bring up the one thing they might
>not (any longer) be happy with. How would you know to keep asking
>about something, if you've had no indication from the other person
>that they might sometime become unhappy with that thing?
But presumably there are not an infinite number of make-or-break upfront
agreements in your relationship?
>I had accusations in my last relationship that I didn't go and
>talk to partner's other when she was becoming unhappy with the si-
>tuation. But by the time I was *told* she was unhappy, she had
>been unhappy for a long time. Maybe it's one of those things
>where I was expected to be able to read subtle nonverbal signals
>which to me are forever a mystery. Or maybe she thought I was
>being told about her unhappiness all along, when I wasn't. But
>the expectation that I go talk to her when she was unhappy always
>seemed so unfair and impossible to me.
I think that if you look at it as an expectation that you should read
minds and know she was unhappy, it was unfair.
However, I don't think it's unfair or unreasonable to be asked and then
expected to make an effort to maintain a relationship with an OP, the
kind of relationship where problems can be aired when they occur.
It might be unfair of someone to expect *you* to do that without asking
you to, since you may not have realized it is something that people
generally expect of each other. So in the particular case, I don't think
it was your fault that things went bad. But there are things you might
be able to do in the future that might decrease the chances of that
happening again. (I am not sure you could fix your relationship with
this *particular* OP though.)
Relationships need tending. Your partner's OP will always have some
effect on your relationship, since OP affects partner. Therefore, you
have a relationship with OP and it has to be tended. It's like a plant
-- it probably won't make a noise when it needs tending, and if you wait
until it looks droopy, it might be too late. You need to remember to
tend it before that. (But not too much either.)
>Now, I hear that I'm supposed to ask once in a while (how often
>is once in a while?) how the relationship is going in general
>for someone. (I don't mean just now from you here -- I've heard
>it before. Just never before the tail end of that relationship.)
>Okay, I can do that. I just never knew it before -- it never
>would have *occurred* to me. I always thought that if nobody
>told me anything was wrong, that meant everything was pretty
>much okay.
Right.
>> I think it doesn't matter what "others" think (except your therapist or
>> your spiritual advisor), only what your partner thinks.
>
>It matters if I ever want to be part of a community or keep a
>group of friends (or even friendly acquaintances).
I think it's useful to know whether others like you in general, but I
think it's possible to get along quite well without knowing who exactly
thinks you're "manipulative" and who exactly thinks you're "something
else bad." If others don't like you, I think it's useful to get a
general sense about why (e.g., others tend to think you're difficult,
manipulative, pompous, whatever) and to know what it is about your
behavior that sometimes causes those interpretations.
But if you are deciding whether you should, in a *particular* case, accept
that your behavior was manipulative, the opinions of people who weren't
there probably shouldn't count for as much.
>Well, I don't accept the label... I know it's not really what I
>*am*. But I know it's a pattern, that I get thought of as "mani-
>pulative" and similar things repeatedly, by different people in
>different communities. I want to find out how to stop that.
*nod* For what it's worth, I think you're searching in better ways
now than you seem to have done in the past.
>Of course it's compounded by the fact that a reputation from pre-
>vious communities will follow me to the next. That makes it as
>if I'm "guilty until proven innocent" from the start. And inno-
>cense is a *very* hard thing to prove.
Indeed.
>> Most people are more interested in maintaining their loyalties than in
>> seeking the truth.
>
>I guess so. So how do I get people to feel some sort of loyalty
>to me, as well as to whoever decides to take a dislike to me?
If you get a few people to like you, then the people who are loyal to
them will also be more inclined to consider you likeable, and that will
begin to counter the other reputation you have. (The best course would
be to get influential people to like you, and/or to get people who have
a reputation of being fair to stand up for you.) You still won't get
everybody to like you, but you might get enough to be able to feel part
of the community again.
>> As for what makes you seem unbelievable in general to some people --
>> it's related to the RAA stuff. You are fond of discussing extreme
>> situations. It may give people kind of a distorted picture of what your
>> life is like, or may seem as if you are exaggerating to get sympathy.
>That's probably true in situations like here, the newsgroup. But
>I don't get into many of those kinds of discussions face to face.
>Maybe when there is overlap between the meatspace community and
>people who read newsgroups or mailing lists where thse discussions
>happen, it's a factor in the meatspace community too. But this
>has been going on all my life, everywhere. Elementary school,
>high school, other communities before I had anything to do with
>the internet, places where I can't remember ever doing any sort of
>"debating" with anyone.
>
>But I do at some point often discuss my own life with someone in
>a community. Anecdotes, at least, from my own life do get told.
>Is my own life such an "exreme situation" that talking about it
>turns people off?
Yes, I'm afraid it will turn some people off. Some people don't want to
hear about extreme hardship. And/or your expression of your feelings
about your life will turn some people off. Sometimes you have come
across as seeming like a victim who wants to be taken care of but finds
fault with offers of help. (I have no trouble believing that there were
legitimate reasons for feeling or seeming that way or not being able to
accept some kinds of help.) Some people don't want to hear about feelings
of being a victim and get frustrated if they can't figure out how to
help.
>> (1) You and your motives and intentions are hard to understand because
>> of the differences in how you behave and think compared to other people.
>> So people interpret you incorrectly.
>That's probably true. I know others don't always read my non-
>verbals correctly. I'm constantly frustrated that there have
>only ever been a few people who have taken that to mean that
>they can't read me. Most people take it to mean I'm lying
>about my own feelings. They put more trust in their own abi-
>lities to "read" people than in my words. I don't know how
>to get around that.
Other than having them read Oliver Sacks books, I don't know what to
suggest, either. You might want to join a community of other people who
think more the way you do, as well as trying to get back into the
community that has rejected you. Hearing suggestions from others with
issues similar to yours might help you more than I can.
>I've tried telling people up front that
>I don't have the right nonverbal "signals" and that they pro-
>bably won't be able to read me correctly (or I them), and
>they nod and smile and appear to acknowledge it, and then
>proceed to forget it.
Yep, I don't think that's something which can be internalized without
some experience or serious thought. I have a sweetie who also has wonky
nonverbals, and it's very hard for me to remember.
>Of course when he happened upon me, he knew that I would never
>be believed over him, so he felt free to fuck with me, even to
>confide in me his motivations and some horrendous things he
>had done (and how he'd gotten away with them) in the past.
Sounds like a true psychopath.
>So how I avoid these people? Is there even any such thing as
>a person with a good reputation who is actually decent and
>trustworthy?
Yes, I think there are. I think the best way to avoid untrustworthy
people might be to enlist the help of someone who has proven zir
trustworthiness (such as your handfasted-partner, if he is good at
reading people?) to help you read people and give you reality checks.
A second-best way might be to develop some guidelines by which to "test"
people over time to see if they act the way they say they are going to
act. I have a fairly well functioning bullshit detector and a lot of it
is built on such tests. For example, you ask someone to do a small
thing, such as show up for a lunch date at X time and Y place, and you
see if they do it. Then move on to other things, and always see if their
actions match their self-description. Over time it may be possible to
build up enough information about someone to see a pattern. (That
probably won't work with psychopaths, unfortunately.)
>> It's not entirely what you do (most people would rather not worry about
>> information that doesn't fit their theories), but various things about
>> your social behavior do somewhat fit the theory of "this is a rude,
>> thoughtless, and manipulative person." I think other theories fit your
>> behavior better (e.g., "some autism/asperger related brain difference"),
>> but those theories are far less widely known. So I think because people
>> don't understand where you're coming from socially, they are likely to
>> interpret it using the handy "rude, thoughtless, manipulative person" theory.
>I see the truth in that, and I have thought that if I could
>explain my differences to people, it would help them to be
>more understanding when I do things which appear to them to
>be "rude" or "thoughtless." Unfortunately, the evidence to
>date does not suggest that it would help much.
I think it might help a tiny bit, but I think people who aren't very
interested in such differences and/or who don't have experience with
other people who are different in those ways are unlikely to really get it.
>I've tried explaining Asperger's to someone I'd had troubles
>with in the past and who had witnessed other troubles, and
>who I'd come back eventually to being friends with again.
>But he took it as making excuses and trying to avoid respon-
>sibility, and said it was absolutely wrong for me to ever
>expect anyone to alter their communication style or their
>expectations for me, [...]
I think it's wrong for you to expect it without asking, but it's
perfectly OK for you to ask, or to point out that you might screw up.
But I also think a lot of people won't be able to do what you want/need.
>As far as I could see, in asking some-
>one to take my differences into account, I *would* be taking
>responsibility for avoiding misunderstandings, the same way
>a deaf person might take that responsibility by asking
>people to be sure to speak where they can lip-read and to
>write things down or sign if they want to be certain they
>are understood correctly.
Yeah, that seems like a good analogy. But deaf and hearing-impaired
folks will be quick to tell you that even though their conditions are
better known than yours, lots of people resent or find it difficult to
change their behavior to communicate with them. My primary is
hearing-impaired, and I sometimes resent / find it difficult.
I don't want to be discouraging, but many people are bad at
understanding and accommodating differences. People who are best at it
tend to be very interested in differences, and/or have a few differences
themselves, and/or have experience with other people who have particular
ones.
>So is it a good idea to keep trying this, when so far it's
>had a pretty high failure rate?
What is your goal? To get back into a particular community? To find some
friends? To find a community but not necessarily the same particular
one?
If your goal is to get back into the particular community, I think
that's the most difficult. I'd only keep on trying it if I really needed
it to happen, I would expect it to take a while, and I'd lower my
expectations of success.
If your goal is to find some friends, then you could keep on trying to
develop friendships with people wherever you find them, but if you
aren't filtering for people who are more likely to get your differences,
I'd expect a pretty low success rate. (It might still be worth it. I
certainly don't make friends with everyone I meet.)
If your goal is to find *a* community, then you might want to look into
some of the online communities I guess are out there for people with
conditions like yours.
Of course you can do a combination of those things.
--
Stef ** rational/scientific/philosophical/mystical/magical/kitty **
** st...@cat-and-dragon.com <*> http://www.bayarea.net/~stef **
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Commoner's three laws of ecology: 1. No action is without side-effects.
2. Nothing ever goes away. 3. There is no free lunch.
Liz W
>> > daughter has already been telling me that she knows that her
>> > dad and stepmom are "mad" at me and "don't like" me. Of
>> > course that troubles me.
>
>> that you should encourage her to use that famous one word
>> reply that children are good at using? have her ask them
>> "why?" stay out of it, tell her that you're not interested
>> in hearing their opinions (but that you are _very_ interested
>> in hearing _her_ opinions) parroted back at you.
>
>Thing is, I don't know whether it's anything they're saying to
>her or even around her, or whether she's just magically picking
>up on their attitudes.
I think that if she brings it up again, it might just be worth
asking her, "Have they said why they're mad at me?" If she says
no, then just repeat what you've said previously about how
everyone feels that way sometimes and that no-one's mad at her
(that's particularly important, I think, and it's great that you
realised she might want reassuring about that). If she says
"Because they think you're [X]", I would ask her, "What do you
think? Do you think I'm [X]?" If she says yes, ask her why and
try to discuss with her what you can do to make her feel happier
about it. If she says no, just say how glad you are that you
and she get along.
This way, you're encouraging her to think critically about what
people tell her, while focusing on your relationship with her
rather than your relationship with her dad and stepmom and
avoiding any direct criticism of them.
All of the above is just my opinion, of course, and I realise I
don't have all the same facts as you do.
Liz
ehw at gouldens dot com
Any ad below this sig was added without my permission.
Please do not patronise the advertiser.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
Up to 100 minutes free!
http://www.keen.com
Aahz Maruch
Karl Allen <kal...@duncan.cs.utk.edu> wrote:
>
>I have extreme misgivings about this thread as a whole, as it seems like
>an easy way to hurt someone's feelings quite badly. I just about choked
>when I read Aahz's above words - but there's something to be said for
>honesty, I guess.
As Angi said, it's not the honesty, it's the bluntness that I thought
was needed -- and I guess she agrees with me. Despite my various vices
and personality defects, hurting people is pretty low on my list of
favorite things to do.
>Anyway, I don't personally have strong feelings about you either
>way. What I do have residual feelings about, and what I'll guess many
>folks who might say "Yeah, Angi's not very likable" would note is the
>Great Unpleasantness that swept over this very newsgroup awhile back
>(geez, how long has it been now?) involving the disintigration of your
>relationship with Elf. I can't right off think of a more bitter, nasty
>flame war off the top of my head. People have said meaner things, but
>typically as part of a troll or something. The Elf/Angi "Who's to
>blame?" nastiness was heartfelt and personal, perhaps because many of
>those posting had met or were friends with those involved. I ended
>up disliking all three of the major players (I think I even flamed
>Elf once, despite my personal belief that the best choice of action
>was to stay far, far away). That's colored how I read your posts ever
>since. That may not be fair, but I'll bet lots of other people still
>hold some amount of grudge for the bile that ended up getting spewed as
>part of all that.
Not at this point in any significant way, for me at least. If any
specific incident colors my current attitude toward Angi, it's probably
that argument about the definition of "friend" we had a few months ago.
However, the five-year old thread *does* still color my attitude toward
Elf, make no mistake.
I'll probably have a couple of more soundbites over the next day or two,
but we've got company coming, so extended comments will have to wait.
Aahz Maruch
>
>I suspect that I've got things about me that are not too likable to
>some people. I've gotten into tiffs with people on this newsgroup,
>Aahz included. I think our big kerfluffle was on the one of the poly
>mailing lists, am I right, Aahz?
I don't even remember, to be honest.
>Despite that, I think Aahz sorta likes me. If not, he's got a really
>odd way of acting towards me in public for someone who doesn't like me.
Your point? ;-)
>I've done things in the past to piss people off. I'm sometimes
>clueless, cranky, hyper kinetic, I have an annoying tendency to babble,
>and sometimes override people trying to get a word in edgewise. Good
>lord, you'd think with all these flaws, I'd be a pariah.
>
>But I'm not. And those are just a few of my flaws. I'm not afraid to
>admit to them, nor ashamed to say I'm working on them the best I can.
Yeah, me too. What I think is that despite our flaws a fair number of
people find us comfortable and/or fun to be around.
Jacob Sommer
>
> In article <39638298...@earthlink.net>,
> Jacob Sommer <len...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> >Stef:
>
<goes back and looks>
<frown> Sorry. I think my attention must have flibbited.
<sigh>
I am generally quite careful with the attributions. <wry snort>
I think you're my first bad one in my Usenet tenure. Oh well...
no more perfect record.
Jacob
(only do a deja search on me if you want to see a *lot* of messages)
LK
>> LK founta...@yahoo.com
>wrote:
>>Sex ed, if I were writing the ciriculum, would inlcude realtionship
>>education as how to tell good realtionships from being ill-used, and
>>how to argue without hitting and major harming.
>
>I really agree with this. Has anyone ever seen anything like this? I'd love
>to suggest something about "what is a healthy/unhealthy relationship" to the
>local school system.
My plan is subversive: sneak it in under the guise of music class.
How many love songs do we hear? What are hidden meanings? Is
________sensible? Why is this romantic/foolish/questionable? What
songs deal with pregnancy? With contraception? What dating/marriage
attitutudes/advice are in the lyrics?
You can get away with alot, including teens' attention, if you're
talking about music. and it's a heck of a lot more fun than simple
plumbing classes with auto decorum of seriousness and boredom.
Bye, Bye Birdee revisited:
A music teacher
A music teacher
I could have been a music teacher
It would've been such a wonderful life
I would be Ms. Tolerant
Ms. SECIUS Tolerant
Ms. Sneak the-important-information-without-anti-sexuality-nonsense
Tolerant
The English teacher's wife!
LK
LK
piranha
Angi Long <angi...@home.com> wrote:
>"Josh Jasper" <sin...@jps.net> wrote:
>> I've done things in the past to piss people off. I'm
>> sometimes clueless, cranky, hyper kinetic, I have an annoying tendency
>> to babble, and sometimes override people trying to get a word in
>> edgewise. Good lord, you'd think with all these flaws, I'd be a pariah.
>
>> But I'm not.
>
>dislike you. You just need to find them. <smiley>
*chortle*. that was hilarious.
-piranha
Elise Matthesen
(LMAO) It sure was! Yikes, Angi! Good one!
Elise,
whose day just brightened remarkably; it's nice what laughter can do.
Louise
>> LK founta...@yahoo.com
>wrote:
>>Sex ed, if I were writing the ciriculum, would inlcude realtionship
>>education as how to tell good realtionships from being ill-used, and
>>how to argue without hitting and major harming.
>
>I really agree with this. Has anyone ever seen anything like this? I'd love
>to suggest something about "what is a healthy/unhealthy relationship" to the
>local school system.
Yes. My brother teaches the Parenting curriculum in Ontario high
schools, and I believe it includes some of this. It's a grade 11
course, so his students are typically 15-18 years old. I'll check
with him tomorrow.
Louise
Louise
>In article <396399ED...@jps.net>, Josh Jasper <sin...@jps.net> wrote:
>>
>>I suspect that I've got things about me that are not too likable to
>>some people. I've gotten into tiffs with people on this newsgroup,
>>Aahz included. I think our big kerfluffle was on the one of the poly
>>mailing lists, am I right, Aahz?
>
>I don't even remember, to be honest.
>
>>Despite that, I think Aahz sorta likes me. If not, he's got a really
>>odd way of acting towards me in public for someone who doesn't like me.
>
>Your point? ;-)
>
>>I've done things in the past to piss people off. I'm sometimes
>>clueless, cranky, hyper kinetic, I have an annoying tendency to babble,
>>and sometimes override people trying to get a word in edgewise. Good
>>lord, you'd think with all these flaws, I'd be a pariah.
>>
>>But I'm not. And those are just a few of my flaws. I'm not afraid to
>>admit to them, nor ashamed to say I'm working on them the best I can.
>
>Yeah, me too. What I think is that despite our flaws a fair number of
>people find us comfortable and/or fun to be around.
I like the and/or. Racing sailboats are not comfortable to be around
(at least not for me!) but can be fun. I'd put you in that category
too.
Louise,
living on the edge
LK
wrote:
>I would be Ms. Tolerant
>Ms. SECIUS Tolerant
>Ms. Sneak the-important-information-without-anti-sexuality-nonsense
>Tolerant
>The English teacher's wife!
Should say: SIECUS
http://www.siecus.org/
The Sexuality Information and Education Council of the
U.S. (SIECUS) is a national,
nonprofit organization which
affirms that sexuality is a natural
and healthy part of living.
Incorporated in 1964, SIECUS
develops, collects, and
disseminates information, promotes
comprehensive
education about sexuality, and
advocates the right of
individuals to make responsible
sexual choices.
One founding member was a clergyman who had presided at the funeral of
teenager who committed suicide when her first period started because
she thought the flow was an STD she acquired from kissing a boy. IIRC
she left a note confessing her sin and her own punishement here and in
the hereafter. (I can't give a source becuase it was an interview
conducted way back when with the celergyman and my memory isn't _that_
good.)
LK
LK
wrote:
>"Stef Maruch" <st...@baygate.bayarea.net> wrote:
>> Angi Long <angi...@home.com> wrote:
>
>> I think avoidance of guilt is a poor reason to change one's behavior.
>> Guilt is one of those feelings that comes and goes. If someone's
>> behavior is based on guilt-avoidance, and the guilt goes away, their
>> reason for the behavior also goes away.
>
>Me, too. I think feeling the guilt, when it comes from caring,
>is a good thing -- it's healthy to feel bad about hurting some-
>one you care about. But I think it should be the caring, not
>the guilt itself, that motivates behavior.
>
Nicely said in both posts. I'll have to remember that.
LK
LK
>Later, with the same PSB (yeah, I was dumb, I took him back) and a
>different set of friends: apparantly everybody in that social circle
>thought I should leave him, that he was bad for me, but *nobody* said a
>thing to me. When he verbally abused me in front of them, *nobody* stood
>up for me against him. When he threatened to kill me one night, and when
>I left the house, threatened to follow me and blow up the house I was
>hiding in, *nobody* spoke out against me going back to him. It wasn't
>until after the relationship was long over that people finally started
>telling me that they thought he wasn't any good for me. Well, thanks,
>guys.
>
>Most of the time, people won't give their opinions when they think it's
>bad news unless you directly ask them, and even then, if they don't trust
>you, they'll sidestep the issue. You can't expect other people, no matter
>how much you like them, to tell you that there's problems in your
>relationship, no matter how obvious they are. It's very rare to have the
>kind of real friends who are willing to risk their relationship with *you*
>enough to tell you that they think you're making a mistake in your
>relationship with somebody else.
>
Speaking as one of those people who tends to care enough about truth,
I can say form the other side that too often the people you do say it
to would rather break off with moi than face a bad judgement on their
part. When/if they do break up with the nasty coot they don't tend to
reaffirm the friendship with moi or others because they don't want to
be "reminded" about their mistake. They--and I do this too, too often
to myself--view making relationship mistakes as personal judgement of
self and self-worth and smarts. So, from the point of view of me
making the relationship mistake, being around someone who was right,
who cared enough to warn me--it can feel like I've let them down by
being so blind. It rarely is what they think but, you know, too much
"I told you so" from parents or siblings when young leaves plenty of
tenderness when older.
I've also encountered women when I've told them up front that they
don't need to put up with being ill-used have almost a terrified look
when I recomend, after they've complained for weeks, that thwy walk
away. There's something they're not telling, like _he_ is paying the
rent for them or the fear no one else will want them or it would hurt
the children or they've never been on their own without a man around
and they don't knnow how to act--only react.
So do you keep your mouth shut so you can be there when they do wake
up? Or do you urge and support leaving only to get the reputation of
a "busybody" or gloomy person who "always" predicts woe and who is
rejected and not informed when the relationship does break up?
LK
LK
wrote:
>Well, I *know* that -- I think disbelieving me and disliking me
>are pretty closely linked. They don't like me because I'm not
>believable, and they don't believe me because they don't like me.
>But *why*? What makes me so unlikeable? What's not to like?
>
>I like myself. I have many of the qualities people supposedly
>find likeable -- I'm honest, honorable, straightforward and up
>front, very open, intelligent, caring... I try very hard to
>please, go out of my way to do nice things for people... I'm a
>good mother, and have always been good with other people's kids,
>too. I'm not perfect, but all in all I find myself a pretty
>likeable person. So what blocks other people from seeing that?
While those are good qualities that doesn't necessarily make someone
fun to be with, or reliable, or consistent enough to make a good
quaility friend. For that matter when people see someone else over
and over again making stupid mistakes or trying to solve the
unsolvable...put it this way: isn't not easy to be friends with
someone who lives from crisis to crisis. (General statement not
specifically directed at Angie.) Too many of the people my spouse
used to be close to were/are like that. Always drama and the only
relaxation was when near drunk, otherwise they seem to need a fighting
or drama fix.
It's tiring.
It's also tiring when someone I care about continually says they don't
understand why something isn't working and I tell them "Because it's
_not_ your job to fix it/them/______________ (fill in name). You
can't force someone to do better. You can't change someone who's too
addicted to causing misery. Some people escape their own demons by
terrorizing or manipulating others. --I'm _not_ telling you to stop
loving them. I'm not saying that at all. I'm telling you to stop
hurting yourself over something you have no power to change. And
unfortunately, the simple fact that you love them is no magic wand to
cure their inner demons. It takes a hell of a lot of work that only
they can do. No matter how much you want to help, you cannot do
their work for them and transplant it into their brain and psyche."
And what I hear back is : "I'm not a quitter. I'm going to make them
change. I'm going to teach them a lesson."
Then I say, "You cannot teach people with stone hearts." And I get
acused of being unfeeling, uncaring, unloving. So I admit I am those
things, but "I am a survior and at least _my_ survival is not harming
others nor is my "callus" survival killing my own soul. --Plus the
simple fact that I am here with you. Where are they? Where are these
people who are supposed to care? Why am I here?"
No one _really_ likes to feel powerless.
On top of all the above, is even if one is a basically good person one
must remember what Dave Lister says to Rimmer when Rimmer talks about
being a good person. "It's because you never have time for people.
It's always up, up, up the zickeral lickety split."
And I think that is the key: making time for people.
(I'm incredibily guilty of that myself. Not enough time. Not enough
money. No sitter.) One has to make time to allow others into their
lives and simply be, rather than the challenge of entertaining or
being clever or what ever. Some laughter and reasonable interesting
and involved give and take, telling jokes, sharing music. It doesn't
take much except to give and be open and make time. --And be able to
laugh at one's self. (Another one of my weak spots.)
So... maybe there is or isn't something in there. And if one is too
hung up on literal things, you're hard pressed to share the jokes.
You have to trust yourself and others to not press their advantage to
hurt you. You don't have to understand everything perfectly to have
fun. (Which is why _I_haven't answered every detailed question
Angie's asked.) Trust you'll understand, somewhat, eventually.
Having to answer every detail or question can bring conversations and
messages to near dead stops. The exchange, the forest gets losts in
examining every tree so that you miss the sunbeams, the moss, the
deer, the silver fox trotting into the brush, and so much more.
Ask, but ask one of two questions _less_ than you'd like. Often those
questions turn out to be not all that important in the long run. A
true friend will tell you to shutup for you own good. (BTHT, been
there, heard that :-> )
LK
LK
wrote:
>I think that's true. I wish I knew the way around it. I
>have no idea how to know whether people are trustworthy or
>not. All I have to go on is what they say, and what others
>say about them. I don't have a "lie detector" that tells me
>when someone is acting suspicious. I've tried picking part-
>ners who seemed to have good reputations, about whom people
>said good things, people highly trusted by other people.
>But I think now that the reason these people were so highly
>trusted was because they were such successful manipulators
>that they'd manipulated *everyone* into trusting them. So
>when they do choose to hurt someone, they get away with it.
BINGO.
>
>One partner even told me that this was the way he thought.
>(After I was deeply involved with him, of course, not before.)
>He was careful to keep a good reputation, so he could reap the
>benefits of being liked and trusted. He did not for one
>minute actually care about any of the people who trusted him
>(by his own admission). And only the fear of the loss of
>those benefits kept him from doing truly horrendous things.
>Of course when he happened upon me, he knew that I would never
>be believed over him, so he felt free to fuck with me, even to
>confide in me his motivations and some horrendous things he
>had done (and how he'd gotten away with them) in the past.
I used to go out with someone like that. I never had the words to
express what I felt. He would actually say things along the lines of
him being my intellectual social superior and that he was only going
out with me because he needed a teaching project, he wanted to be
Pygmalion. He would talk about how he maniuplated others into
trusting him. He did _not_ like it when I would flat out refuse to do
something. He was not the least bit interested in why I didn't, for
example, want to have non-contraceptive sex in the shower with his
parents right next door and them not even knowing I was in the house.
He was angry because I exclaimed, "Are you nuts! No condom?! No
nothing?!" Then he lectured me on defying him and it was not my place
to question his judgement. When I told him it was anyone's place to
question the foolish proposal he made--the look on his face! Then he
had the audicity to say his parents would never approve of me. And I
rejoined, "What does that have to do with lack of contraception?" The
dirt talks back.
>
>So how I avoid these people? Is there even any such thing as
>a person with a good reputation who is actually decent and
>trustworthy?
No. Imperfect people in an off-the-rack world. There's a car
commerical on right now that talks about attraction. Something along
the lines of "No one ever says, 'Hey, look at the morals of that guy!'
or "I bet she has high ethical standards.'"
If you turn to look at Charles? and you can't answer your own
question, then no one else can answer it either.
(And I'm not saying with malice. Just a helluva lot of truth.)
LK
LK
>In article <hor85.51697$Ey2.3...@news1.sttls1.wa.home.com>,
>Angi Long <angi...@home.com> wrote:
>>
>>Seems to me that if anybody was actually manipulative at that
>>time, it was him.
>
> gosh! you think? *sigh*. angi, people _told_ you this a
> long time ago. i know i did, and i wasn't the only one.
>
>>The question left with me, though, is why PO
>>hasn't ever realized that.
>
> why didn't YOU? well, i know why not -- you said so at the
> time. you had invested in him. and so you decided to not
> listen to the warning signals, nor to what people here said
> (admittedly, us being relative strangers, there is really no
> reason why you _should_ per se listen), and to throw good
> emotion after bad.
>
> she is in quite a similar situation from that PoV -- she has
> lots invested in the relationship.
>
> aside from that she might also be getting what she wants out
> of it. i don't know her, nor have i read enough of her posts
> to have formed an opinion on her character, so i don't know
> whether they're two birds of a feather, or she's just not yet
> been fucked over enough by him to recognize what an ass he is.
>
> (obviously i've formed an opinion of _him_, and i've never
> hidden it.)
Sometimes it can be one paragraph, one sentence, one photo --of all
the photos of an individual that the individual has to chose from,
_why_ chose the one that shows the individual's eyes nearly hidden
from the camera? Why the head downward looking from veiled eyes and
longish-hair, and seemingly holding something, that the camera can't
quite see or focus on, in one's hands as if it and what the individual
and thinks is secretive and it's not a particularly pleasant secret?
Ususally, when one wants to be known and accepted the photo is a
face-forward eyes-front view even if there isn't much of a smile. --I
ususally don't ponder people's photos, but every now and then I can't
take my eyes away and I wonder I feel joy or unease. And it bugs me
until I figure it out.
Granted this is all IMO... And I think, well, I recall a post, a
sentence for the aforementioned's spouse that was on seattle.general
that particularly struck me. To the best of my recollection it was
her proclamations and opinions and ended with: "Part of that
agreement was that he remain married to *me.*" In the context, I
thought that was incredible. In between the lines I sensed a kind of
noose, or unspoken threat that life would hell for him if they broke
up, if he even dared think of leaving her. In none of that series of
posts did I recall seeing or sensing between the lines, the "demand"
being based upon a deep love trying to overcome a serious series of
mistakes.
Frankly that amazed me. I expected that to be the motivation. I
followed that thread, not out of morbid curiosity, but looking for
hope, looking for love, looking for a commitment to growth. (Corney,
I know.) But I didn't see it or sense it. Being the lurker that I
was at the time, I chose not to ask about it and besides it felt like
beating a dead horse. I wanted to see appreciation for his changing,
instead I got a sense of "trophy husband" or martyr wife or something
along those lines. My main impression was a tug of war and she had
won.
And winning was the important thing. Winning maintaining control over
someone's actions. Winning no matter who it harms and that winning
fosters non-responsiblity for actions. (Some couples get off on
holding the partners mistakes over them, reminding them no one else
would put up with them.) There is something to be said about being
attached to someone who is so popular with others. And, hey, the
situation was a garenteed attention getter. Even a spouse dying
probably couldn't be milked for long haul. And if one can sublimely
seek vengence against the child that "caused" the problems. Well,
another generation to teach manipulation.
I seriously doubt I would even consider remaining friends let alone
married to a man like that, which is I why I kept looking for the deep
commitment and seeing only "lines of contract" mode. And for that
matter if this was so deeply personal and hurtful and MYOB as was
being claimed, why was there continued participation in the threads?
It just didn't add up.
Some people need a keeper. Problem is I think those kinds of people
ought to remain to the letter monogamous to protect others from their
mind kinks.
[snip]
>>That seems to show some pretty sophisticated planning, on
>>his part, to conceal things from her and mislead both of us.
>
> yes. i think he's quite the manipulator.
Everyone ought to have a hobby :-<
>
>>I always *want* to give everyone the benefit of the doubt,
>>but I don't know what else to conclude from this.
>
> that you need to calibrate your trust meter. there is ab-
> solutely no reason to trust everyone. not even if you love
> -- some people canot be trusted with certain things, period,
> and it's a head-in-the-sand strategy to imagine you ought
> to.
For tha matter where does your personal contract with humanity say you
must give every the benefit of the doubt? You're not a bad person for
expecting, asking, wanting someone to earn your trust. Love thy
neighbor as you love yourself but don't leave the family silver or
your heart out in the middle of street expecting both to be perfectly
safe.
> how logical is it? you've fallen on your face with this
> trust thing of yours several times, badly. what does it
> take to modify the strategy? you don't need to get rid of
> it, just create some gradations of trust. wait with in-
> vesting everything until you know more.
>
> and don't get involved with people whose partners dislike
> you this much. break up when you find out and if communi-
> cations can't be established directly. that hurts, yes,
> but it is the saner choice. investment, shmestment -- you
> threw bunches of emotion at somebody who was not worthy,
> after seeing very clear warnings that he was not worthy,
> and after knowing you had not a chance in hell to ever be
> accepted as a co-primary by his wife.
>
> learn to listen to warning signals. you heard them -- i
> know because you reported them here, and people told you
> how bad this sounded. part of you didn't want to listen.
>
> make yourself listen.
By almost popular demand and the so often general questions:
From _Getting Free_ (1986) Ginny NiCarthy published by Seal Press,
Seattle as reproduced in _Courage to Heal_ (Buying the book is still
best. So much good relationship advice that is applicable to
improving non-harmfrul relationships and getting to know one's self.
And good ideas of expanding one's definition of sexuality. I really
need to buy to the latest edition. But it's great to see what I now do
automatically that I used to struggle to accomplish.)
excerpt : Is My Realtionship Abusive?
Emotional Abuse
Has your partner done any of these things to you?
--ignored your feelings
--rediculed or insulted women[/men/trangender, etc.] as a group
--insulted your valued beliefs, religion, race, herirtage, or class
--withheld approval or affection as a punishment
--criticized you, called you names, shouted at you
--insulted your family or friends
--humilated you
--refused to socialized with you
--kept you from working, controlled your money, made all your
decisions
--refused to work or share money
--regularly threaten to leave or told you to leave
--threatened to hurt you or your family
--punished the children when s/he was angry at you
--threatened to kidnap the children if you left him/her
--abused pets to hurt you
--manipulated you with lies and contradictions
<end>
The more you can checkmark, the more trouble. The more dangerous
ones, the more trouble. The more frequent, the more trouble.
Now turn those guidelines around and put postives in for the negatives
and you've got the beginings of a great relationship.
The hardest part is realizing your changing and improving the
relationship isn't enough to rescue a relationship. The other(s) have
to work at it, too.
LK
LK
wrote:
>Don't you think the words can be said without it being a threat --
>without it being meant to be taken literally? I hear people saying
>things like "I'd just die" all the time. Even "I'd just kill my-
>self if that happened." It's usually pretty clear that they don't
>mean it *literally*.
Someone who used extreme phrases like that would bore me. To me that
is lack of vocabulary to express feelings or concerns. Extremes mean
nothing after awhile, just melodrama thus ignorable.
LK
Ryk
[about whether Aahz is comfortable and/or fun to be around]
>I like the and/or. Racing sailboats are not comfortable to be around
>(at least not for me!) but can be fun. I'd put you in that category
>too.
Racing sailboats can be both comfortable and fun to be around. This
usually occurs while sitting near the boats in a deck chair in the
shade, sipping a cool beverage, and discussing the merits of different
boats, crews, or the mistakes everybody made in the last race.
There may be a parallel there ;-)
>Louise,
>living on the edge
Get some more weight on the rail. You're not doing it right unless
part of you is over the edge ;-)
Ryk
Louise
>Elise Matthesen <el...@lioness.net> wrote:
>
>>The "talk a lot while we're doing it" part is particularly important to
>>me, when it's a partner (or other closely intertwined person) who is
>>doing the changing. If I have been a companion to them during the
>>pondering and decisionmaking process, then I almost always find it much
>>easier to be aware, patient, supportive, and also to take good care of
>>myself during what might be stressful time of change.
>
>Same here. I guess there is something to be said, after all, in favor of
>my tendency to "pre-worry" about things. :-)
I pre-worry about things too. Sometimes my pre-worrying is so
successful that the people who have listened to the pre-worrying get
the idea that it wasn't necessary. And I say "No, no, it's *because*
I got all fussed about what might happen and made you all listen to
me, that it was easy to avoid it."
Very hard to prove that, though.
Louise
Jim Roberts
songbird wrote:
[...]
>
> and whatever you do don't badmouth her father in front
> of her, to her or otherwise. if he is a bad person trust
> that eventually and in her own way she will learn this.
> the only reason you have to interfere is if she is being
> abused. otherwise stay out. it's both a child power game
> and a nasty poison better not spread around.
>
> songbird *peep*
It's not always so simple. After our separation my first wife kept
hassling our kids, telling them that I didn't love them and that's why I
moved out. The divorce was not my idea, and she forced me out by saying
she'd call the cops to drag me off, and jim-with-his-nose-in-the-books
didn't know she couldn't do that. There was no abuse in the marriage,
save her psychological abuse of me. She fell into a cult-like
relationship with another couple.
To defeat her poison, I *had* to explain some hard facts to the kids.
After that, they handled it pretty well for about seven years, but in
the end she wore them down, and there was nothing I could do that
worked. Now they are both very fucked up, son with a drinking problem
and a bulimic daughter. Both as lost as puppies on Broadway.
But you have to try. They at least know I tried to help them, but they
have too many problems for that knowledge to help them much at the
moment. Their mother's poison lives on. They are snake-bit.
One *can* counter poison without getting into pettiness, by sticking to
the plain facts that the children can see for themselves, without
"interpretations". One hopes that the poison will dissipate, and it
does in most cases.
jimbat
Gwynyth
> Just butting in again...
>
> On Wed, 5 Jul 2000, Angi Long wrote:
> > I think what I got from the newsgroup was not that. Here, it
> > seems like messages are always so cushioned -- it seems like a
> > taboo, of sorts, to actually, actively counsel someone to leave
> > a relationship, unless that person seems to be already saying
> > that they really want to leave. If it's said, it's said with a
> > lot of cushioning. And that would never get through to me.
> > Especially not a few years ago (more recently I've learned a
> > bit more about language and what people are really trying to
> > say when they're so roundabout -- a bit more, maybe not a lot).
>
> It's not just this newsgroup. When I was first dating my personal Psycho
> Hose Beast, I didn't know until after he'd dumped me that he had been
> cheating on me - sleeping with somebody else and specifically lying to me
> about it. Most of our mutual "friends" knew, and deliberately kept me in
> the dark about it. Afterwards, when one of them finally spilled the beans
> and I confronted several of them about it, the unanimous reply was that it
> wasn't their business, and they didn't want to "ruin my relationship."
>
> Later, with the same PSB (yeah, I was dumb, I took him back) and a
> different set of friends: apparantly everybody in that social circle
> thought I should leave him, that he was bad for me, but *nobody* said a
> thing to me. When he verbally abused me in front of them, *nobody* stood
> up for me against him. When he threatened to kill me one night, and when
> I left the house, threatened to follow me and blow up the house I was
> hiding in, *nobody* spoke out against me going back to him. It wasn't
> until after the relationship was long over that people finally started
> telling me that they thought he wasn't any good for me. Well, thanks,
> guys.
>
> Most of the time, people won't give their opinions when they think it's
> bad news unless you directly ask them, and even then, if they don't trust
> you, they'll sidestep the issue. You can't expect other people, no matter
> how much you like them, to tell you that there's problems in your
> relationship, no matter how obvious they are. It's very rare to have the
> kind of real friends who are willing to risk their relationship with *you*
> enough to tell you that they think you're making a mistake in your
> relationship with somebody else.
>
--
Gwynyth
gwy...@polyamory.org
http://www.polyamory.org/~gwynyth
Gwynyth
post saved to respond to when I got my brain back from the cold that's
been holding it hostage. Said brain forgot it was on hold, and then my
newsreader went slightly flaky.)
Elynne <ely...@wolfenet.com> wrote:
<snip>
> Most of the time, people won't give their opinions when they think it's
> bad news unless you directly ask them, and even then, if they don't trust
> you, they'll sidestep the issue. You can't expect other people, no matter
> how much you like them, to tell you that there's problems in your
> relationship, no matter how obvious they are. It's very rare to have the
> kind of real friends who are willing to risk their relationship with *you*
> enough to tell you that they think you're making a mistake in your
> relationship with somebody else.
I think part of it (having been through both successfull and
unsuccessful "J is bad for you" conversations - J being my ex-fiance)
has to do with how it's approached.
I had a really hard time taking the people who'd had only limited
interaction with him directly seriously (they turned out to be right,
obviously, but..) because I knew they only *had* had limited
interactions with him. Particularly at the beginning of our
relationship, where they'd spent only a very limited amount of time with
him in person (a few hours to perhaps 12 hours) and where I was getting
a fair amount of grief from the same people (or other people in the
social group) for the whole poly thing in general at the same time.
I found it much easier to take "Look, he's doing hurtful things to you"
and "Look, what you're asking for is reasonable ,what he's throwing a
fit about is unreasonable" from people who *did* know him in person,
and/or who had longer experience times with him in other ways (online).
I also found it a lot easier to take than the more generic "J is a
bad/hurtful/icky person"
These were, interestingly enough, the couple I later became involved
with (and they, regardless of later issues, wonderful about this) They
spent a *lot* of time telling whether me what I wanted and was asking
for in my relationship with J was a reasonable thing to ask, who helped
me break down specific patterns of behavior and see how they were
hurtful, to see how he turned things around when I tried to resolve
them. Finally, they were - above all - supportive of the fact that I did
keep saying "I promised to marry him, I'm not going to give up on that
promise until I'm certain there's no other choice. On the other hand,
I'm not going to start making wedding plans just yet either."
There are also a number of other people who did similar things, though
in lesser quantity. I am very grateful to *all* of them (some six
people, I think) for being there and being willing to talk to me about
what was going on, and for giving me support, but not forcing decisions
on me.
There was something about the lack of pressure for me to take a specific
action, the assistance with looking at the relationship in a more
pragmatic way, encouraging me to continue examining how I felt (and
things like "I feel really happy today, for the longest I've felt really
happy for, and it's because I haven't talked to J at all in about 10
hours" (I'd been out at a conference in Boston for work, then out to
dinner for my birthday with Darkhawk and her partner, so it was also a
particularly nice day for other reasons.)
And, of course, the assistance in emotional support, the help listing
out options, and other things. Advice which stopped at "He's bad for
you" *wouldn't* have helped, honestly, because it didn't go nearly far
enough - and because there's really no way for the person hearing it to
determine how much of that is the other person's past history, how much
is their own biases, and such - because they *aren't* telling you. (When
I asked the few people who did that to me, they were either unwilling or
unable to put into words what was worrying them - I *did* ask in several
cases.)
"I don't like him" isn't highly convincing (except, perhaps, from people
who are *way* up in your trust levels - there are people I'll take a "I
don't like him" as a solid piece of evidence from, but there's only
about 5 of them and all but one of them are more recent comers to that
place of trust (or, in the case of Darkhawk and her partner, it a)
didn't apply because she *knew* why I was hanging in there, even if she
didn't agree with it, and she and I were on opposite sides of the Great
Ex Divide at the time.)
But it's not very convincing from people I knew I didn't see eye to eye
on enough stuff with *already* - how do you tell whether they're right
or if it's just another preference thing at that point?
"I'm worried about your relationship with J, and I'd like to talk to you
about the things that are worrying me, but I realise that you see things
from a different perspective. Can we sit down and talk about what's
worrying me, and then, if you like, we can drop the subject?" works much
better - and the examples can be "You know, every time I talk to you
after you've talked to him, you've been stressed." or "Every time you've
come to church this month, you've had to take a break and you're clearly
on edge." or "When I was with you and him at <event>, and he did X, I
saw that made you unhappy. It seems like he does stuff like that lot."
One of the things that bemuses me is that my current SO originally made
some people feel like they did around my ex-fiance - some of his outward
patterns are somewhat similar. He's both grown up some in the past 9
months or so, it's partly that some of his reactions are much more
reasonable in a 19 year old than in a 25 year old, and partly that it's
become clear that he really does have my best interests in mind, and
really doesn't want to hurt me, and has been showing that to various
people in various ways over time. If my trusted friends still had
problems with him now (of a magnitude more than 'not what I'd have
chosen myself' or 'not my taste, but still a good guy') (after having
enough time to get to know him), I'd be listening, though.
Jim Roberts
Gwynyth wrote:
[...]
>
> I had a really hard time taking the people who'd had only limited
> interaction with him directly seriously (they turned out to be right,
> obviously, but..) because I knew they only *had* had limited
> interactions with him. Particularly at the beginning of our
> relationship, where they'd spent only a very limited amount of time with
> him in person (a few hours to perhaps 12 hours) and where I was getting
> a fair amount of grief from the same people (or other people in the
> social group) for the whole poly thing in general at the same time.
>
[...]
> But it's not very convincing from people I knew I didn't see eye to eye
> on enough stuff with *already* - how do you tell whether they're right
> or if it's just another preference thing at that point?
>
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.
[...]
jimbat
Stef Maruch
Some of my pre-worrying has been very useful, and some of it has been
waaay excessive and probably made things worse in the long run.
--
Stef ** rational/scientific/philosophical/mystical/magical/kitty **
** st...@cat-and-dragon.com <*> http://www.bayarea.net/~stef **
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Cats could pull off plaids with stripes, or tan shoes with pink
shoelaces and a polka-dot vest. It's all in the attitude. -- Erick
Vermillion-Salsbury, graphic artist
astral alice
[much snipped]
>
> The one I use is "Dear? Can we talk about something? Lately, something
> happened which made me feel hurt. I'm pretty sure that you didn't mean
> to do that, so I wanted to talk about it, so you'd know. When <insert
> example here: you asked me to do X, you said X, you did Y>, it made me
> feel <sad, hurt, isolated, pushed away> because <explanation. Ideally,
> the explanation relates to something else in your life, not to something
> this person has done. Obviously, that's not always possible.> Can we
> figure out some way to avoid this in future?"
>
> Ideally, this conversation happens as soon as I can verbalise the
> problem, becuase it *does* show in the way I react to the person in
> question, and it's not something I consider nice *or* ethical *or* moral
> to leave them hanging and wondering what's wrong.
>
> An example from my own life is "When you said X, I felt pushed away
> because that's something <Ex-fiance> did using really similar words.
> When he did it, after that, he <did the followings as well>, and it
> scares me that that might happen with you. I know you're not him, but
> the memories of him are still there, and I know I react less than
> rationally to that. Can you help me?"
>
> It's rather roundabout, but it *can* work, so long as the other person
> honestly doesn't want to hurt you, and is willing to put a minimal level
> of attention into not hurting you.
>
> The basic gist is to say "I feel" rather than "You make me feel" and to
> keep the other person's actions purely as a clause "At the time you did
> this, I felt...." where the cause and effect are kept sort of separate,
> and the cause is somewhat depersonalised. Owning your own reactions and
> emotions while not ascribing stuff to them other than the actual words
> they used is the other part.
I find even saying "I feel" doesn't work. The absolute single biggest
issue I have in my primary relationship is the fear that my primary will
end up treating me in the same way as other partners have done in the
past. It's an irrational fear and it doesn't respond well to rationality.
Most of the time I keep it under control, but every now and then
something will surface and I'll get scared. I'll say something very
similar to what Gwynyth said, and the response I'll get will be "Can't
you learn that I'm not him? Why do you think all your boyfriends will
treat you the same way?". All this does is make me get upset. Do you
have some suggestions for a way to broach the subject "X makes me
uncomfortable because it's what <ex> did" without a partner assuming
that I am comparing him to my ex?
alice.
--
* astral alice: bi, poly, goth | http://www.death.org.uk *
* alice on Surfers | telnet://surfers.org 4242 *
* --------------------------------------------------------------------- *
* What's the name of the word for things not being the same always? You *
* know... the thing that lets you know time is happening? - The Sandman *
LK
wrote:
>I find even saying "I feel" doesn't work. The absolute single biggest
>issue I have in my primary relationship is the fear that my primary will
>end up treating me in the same way as other partners have done in the
>past. It's an irrational fear and it doesn't respond well to rationality.
>Most of the time I keep it under control, but every now and then
>something will surface and I'll get scared. I'll say something very
>similar to what Gwynyth said, and the response I'll get will be "Can't
>you learn that I'm not him? Why do you think all your boyfriends will
>treat you the same way?". All this does is make me get upset. Do you
>have some suggestions for a way to broach the subject "X makes me
>uncomfortable because it's what <ex> did" without a partner assuming
>that I am comparing him to my ex?
First shorten the statement: : "X makes feel uncomfortable because I'm
afraid ______________while happen." Totally, drop the ex bit. I'm
not surprised partner feels constantly compared and on the defensive.
It comes across like partner is competiton with ex. It's not fair and
it is _not_ the issue.
It is _not_ an issue of you learning that zie isn't someone else.
That really doesn't matter. It's trust. Specifically it is trusting
yourself that you've made a good decision to be with zie. That's the
issue. And it is a recurring issue. And very likely to be a lifelong
issue.
Now when zie accepts you trusting your own judgement is the issue and
not that zie is a "bad guy" that makes it easier. It's your feelings,
your judgement, your trust in you're own self that is the "bad guy."
As the self-trust issue is faced and dealt with whenever there is a
key decision to be made...time and good interaction with partner is
the healer.
Plus your partner has to accept responsiblity, it's not all on your
shoulders. Your partner has to accept that is the way you are, for
now, and if zie can't handle it then zie has the choice to leave.
Try this: make a list of decisions you are good at making. Ask zie to
contribute to the list. This chat can be over a glass of wine or cup
of tea, casual, even with a small group of friends. "Let's celebrate
Astral Alice Day!" and in between jokes and jibes and a good meal or
snack ask people to contribute to the list. Make a big poster or
sheet of paper and write 'em down or even in secret.
Then you have a comparision of what you're good at and when you make a
separate list of what scares you to make decisions about you've a
better idea where you are. partner/Zie can see the lists. Zie can
help determine decisions zie thinks you're good at so zie and you can
see that even though repetetion is annoying, it is only part of you.
Plus the good to counteract the problem areas.
It's not going to hurt zie to say, for example (this is a bug-a-boo
for moi and spouse), "I'm thinking of going bowling with some people
from work. I could use some "alone time." Can you handle me wanting
to socialize alone on Thursday?" Spouse stated what he wants, why he
wants it, and asked for feedback. Then I'd ask some questions and say
how I feel or what I'm worried about that I might feel at the time.
Spouse and have know each other for 10 years--wow! Hard to believe
it's been that long--and even in our first years together he was good
at focusing on my problem of self-trust and not accusing me of
mistaking him for my ex. He'd remind me that he wasn't J and even ask
what J would do. Then we'd compared the reactions. Typically, one of
us would end up saying, "You/I have never done that. Needing a break
is not abandonement. Scary, but you know where I'll be." And over
the years it crops up--like two days ago--but it's a rare issue these
days and usually resovled within a few minutes. In the early years it
took hours.
With work and rest your issues, crises, doubts, will lessen. But your
partner must work with you. Assuming a defensive posture is not
helping. Your using ex partner's behavior as a reason is not help.
Yes, that is a motvation, but keep your concerns about the present and
the future and about _your_ concerns. It is about you. If zie can't
commit to working with you, you'll save yourself heartache and
self-bashing by ending it. Zie doesn't have to be perfect, but it is
work and zie has to _be_ a partner, not just "partnerned." And you
must _be_ a partner and talk about what you fear or concerned now. As
you focus on the now, the past will become less strong, the training
of misery will become less powerful.
Keep at it and practice the wording focused on now, not the past, when
stating a concern.
LK
Angi Long
> astral alice <al...@death.org.uk> wrote:
> >I find even saying "I feel" doesn't work. The absolute single biggest
> >issue I have in my primary relationship is the fear that my primary will
> >end up treating me in the same way as other partners have done in the
> >past. It's an irrational fear and it doesn't respond well to rationality.
> >Most of the time I keep it under control, but every now and then
> >something will surface and I'll get scared. I'll say something very
> >similar to what Gwynyth said, and the response I'll get will be "Can't
> >you learn that I'm not him? Why do you think all your boyfriends will
> >treat you the same way?". All this does is make me get upset. Do you
> >have some suggestions for a way to broach the subject "X makes me
> >uncomfortable because it's what <ex> did" without a partner assuming
> >that I am comparing him to my ex?
> First shorten the statement: : "X makes feel uncomfortable because I'm
> afraid ______________while happen." Totally, drop the ex bit.
I would think this might get the reaction "don't you trust me to not
let _________ happen?" It might be better to make it clear that you
know this is not a rational feeling, that you know ________ is not
really likely to happen, but your feeling happens nonetheless.
-- Angi Long of House Windstalker
Angi Long
> (3) Some people grow up with a cultural guideline: "Don't make requests
> unless they're very important, and don't refuse other people's requests
> unless you absolutely have to."
Really? That seems so self-sacrificing to me. My partner always
says "if you don't ask, then you never have the opportunity to be
told 'yes.'"
> Yes. I think a lot of adults learn somehow to moderate their extreme
> feelings (or it happens by itself, with aging), and tend to view extreme
> feelings as childish (or, if they are positive, childlike). So that
> might add to the disconnect when you are trying to express very strong
> feelings to another adult.
I think this explains some things... I think men I get involved
with tend to find my extreme positive NRE feelings, and the way I
take Great Delight in things, childlike and attractive (and the
NRE, flattering). But if they have another partner, the unusual
strength of the feelings might be scary to them. And when they
all later learn that my negative feelings run just as strong as
my positive, that's "childish" or "immature" or "manipulative."
Maybe things they do which they expect me to at most be moderately
bothered by, I act like they're tearing my heart out, because to
me that's what it really feels like.
I never realized before recently that the way my emotions worked
might be unusual, so these explanations never occured to me before.
dark...@cits1.stanford.edu
astral alice <al...@death.org.uk> wrote:
> I find even saying "I feel" doesn't work. The absolute single biggest
> issue I have in my primary relationship is the fear that my primary will
> end up treating me in the same way as other partners have done in the
> past. It's an irrational fear and it doesn't respond well to rationality.
I've got a few of those lying around myself.
I tend to look at them not so much as irrational fears as. . . trained
responses, really.
"Every time I've had a situation like X it has come out as Y. I therefore
have a Pavlovian association of X with Y."
I have this for -good- things that have turned out bad in the long run.
> Most of the time I keep it under control, but every now and then
> something will surface and I'll get scared. I'll say something very
> similar to what Gwynyth said, and the response I'll get will be "Can't
> you learn that I'm not him? Why do you think all your boyfriends will
> treat you the same way?". All this does is make me get upset.
I think reasonably so; it comes across to me as hostile.
My stupid reactions are not causes for hostility directed towards
-me-. Hostility directed towards the stupid reactions is much more
reasonable. (The term I tend to use for this is 'pounding on rock
monsters', rock monsters being the little critters that lurk under the
rocks in my ehad and come out and bite me somewhere vulnerable when I'm
too close and not looking.)
> Do you
> have some suggestions for a way to broach the subject "X makes me
> uncomfortable because it's what <ex> did" without a partner assuming
> that I am comparing him to my ex?
I've been around the mulberry bush on this one recently. Though not on
the 'uncomfortable because it's what <ex> did,' quite, but because there's
a bit of the back of my head that's convinced I'm cursed in relationships
other than the one with the partner, and so the better a relationship
looks the more freaked-out I am about getting involved, because it'll hurt
more when the 'inevitable' fall happens.
And what I did when I had one of these mometns of raving irrationality was
to say, fairly straightforwardly, "I'm ravingly irrational." And then I
went and analysed out the reasons -why- I was beign ravingly irrational,
traced them back to things, and sort of handed the entire explanation over
in a thirty kilobyte email. (LDR are good for one thing: email
explanations are not only easy, but the default.)
Every so often I go in and unpack little nuggets of the raving
irrationality to illustrate some point or other, in more detail. As I've
actually, over the years I've been nuts, gone and tracked down a lot of
the -reasons- I'm nuts (so that when I come across a new and exciting rock
monster I can generally figure out where it came from fairly quickly, and
I know the weak points of most of the familiar species), I can actually go
into a fairly good set of details about what the problem actually /is/.
(Sometiems I find a new link, and go noodling off after
that; psychoanalyzing myself has been a hobby for years.)
And, having explained all this in tedious and overdone detail, I tend to
do the following: apologize for the existence of the problem. State that
with a little help I will try to get rid of the associations that lead to
the problem, but will require help. Ask if that's all right, really. Ask
again, two or three times, if it's all right really. Just to be
sure. Because I tend not to be. And I worry.
This has, overall, gotten the computer programmer's reaction to the
existence of the problem: "It shouldn't be doing that!" Generally
followed by a rather reasonable dissection of the problem, pointing out
the places where the 'logic' is particularly tenuous, and reassurances
that it really is all right that I'm weird in the head, and that a
solution is possible.
To which I tend to doublecheck and be sure that it's all right,
really. Just to be sure. Because I . . . .
(I've actually been doing two separate loops on this one lately; the
trying to deal with the bit of brain that thinks I'm cursed, and the
trying to deal with the bit of brain that suffered repeated trauma damage
and thus did a real number on my emotionset around sex.)
The reaction on the second one was different from the above, which
makes perfect sense as I was talking to a different person entirely. ;) It
was more like, 'I'll think about this and see if I can come up with any
practical ways of addressing the now-verbalized problem; in the meantime,
can I -please- go pummel the people responsible for doing this to you?'
- Darkhawk, pondering the amusing differences in style
of the various people who help her debug her
head. . . .
--
My sights, my songs are slightly charred and you might think
They miss their mark, but things are only what they are and nothing new
But for me, I think they'll do. But for me, I think they'll do.
- Peter, Paul, and Mary, "Rolling Home"
dark...@cits1.stanford.edu
> "Stef Maruch" <st...@baygate.bayarea.net> wrote:
>> (3) Some people grow up with a cultural guideline: "Don't make requests
>> unless they're very important, and don't refuse other people's requests
>> unless you absolutely have to."
> Really? That seems so self-sacrificing to me. My partner always
> says "if you don't ask, then you never have the opportunity to be
> told 'yes.'"
The partner and I occasionally run up against this one, because we're on
opposite sides of that particular cultural divide.
I don't take hints well (as a mild understatement; when I notice them,
they tend to annoy me to extremes); he doesn't feel comfortable asking for
things unless they are Absolutely Necessary.
I'd say how we resolved that one, but I'm not entirely certain that we
have, aside from me remembering more often than I might otherwise to ask
him how he feels/if he needs something.
> I think this explains some things... I think men I get involved
> with tend to find my extreme positive NRE feelings, and the way I
> take Great Delight in things, childlike and attractive (and the
> NRE, flattering). But if they have another partner, the unusual
> strength of the feelings might be scary to them. And when they
> all later learn that my negative feelings run just as strong as
> my positive, that's "childish" or "immature" or "manipulative."
Heh -- I'm well aware that I go to extremes.
I tend to try to remember to warn people about this early on. Though I've
found that a lot of the time I don't manage to convey the gist of the
extreme very well; I remember at one point explaining to a then-partner
that, under certain circumstances, I am at serious risk for going
functionally catatonic -- in a state where I literally cannot move by
conscious effort. I explained what those circumstances were.
A few weeks later, I hit one of those particular fugues, and went
catatonic, and he didn't notice for a -very long time-. In which I was
stuck in my head in a body that wasn't actually responding to the
conscious effort I made to move. When he finally did something that
knocked me out of the state (I know how I get in it, and I know how to get
me out of it), I broke down completely, because gods, that's scary. And
he hadn't realized that /that/ was what I meant.
So warnign people is a start, but I don't know that it'll always work.
- Darkhawk, who must interject an ObMusic now:
Out of the darkness, into the light
Leaving the scene of the crime
Either I'm wrong or I'm perfectly right every time
Sometimes I lie awake night after night
Coming apart at the seams
Eager to please; Ready to fight
Why do I go to extremes?
- Billy Joel
fairest one
: "LK" <founta...@yahoo.com> wrote:
:> astral alice <al...@death.org.uk> wrote:
:> >I find even saying "I feel" doesn't work. The absolute single biggest
:> >issue I have in my primary relationship is the fear that my primary will
:> >end up treating me in the same way as other partners have done in the
:> >past. It's an irrational fear and it doesn't respond well to rationality.
:> >Most of the time I keep it under control, but every now and then
:> >something will surface and I'll get scared. I'll say something very
:> >similar to what Gwynyth said, and the response I'll get will be "Can't
:> >you learn that I'm not him? Why do you think all your boyfriends will
:> >treat you the same way?". All this does is make me get upset. Do you
:> >have some suggestions for a way to broach the subject "X makes me
:> >uncomfortable because it's what <ex> did" without a partner assuming
:> >that I am comparing him to my ex?
:> First shorten the statement: : "X makes feel uncomfortable because I'm
:> afraid ______________while happen." Totally, drop the ex bit.
: I would think this might get the reaction "don't you trust me to not
: let _________ happen?"
it might get that reaction, and my answer to that would be "no, i *don't*
trust you to not let ____ happen." if the other person had said what you
say above, angi, in a non-snarky way, then i would go on to elaborate that
it wasn't about whether or not they were trustable, it was about whether
or not i was capable of trusting about ____, and i'm sorry if that is a
hurtful thing, but that's the way the inside of my head works, and the way
the inside of my head works is not a negotiable relationship point.
(i'm perfectly willing to work on rearranging the inside of my head if it
annoys *me*, and if it causes relationship issues, it likely will annoy
me. but i'm not willing to let other people decide which bits need
rearranging.)
: It might be better to make it clear that you
: know this is not a rational feeling, that you know ________ is not
: really likely to happen, but your feeling happens nonetheless.
this is a good thing to make clear, yes.
betsy.
--
i do it for the joy it brings\because i'm a joyful girl\because the world
owes me nothing\and we owe each other the world\i do it because
it's the least i can do\i do it because i learned it from you\and i do it
just because i want to\because i want to --ani difranco
Gwynyth
<snipping my own stuff>
> I find even saying "I feel" doesn't work. The absolute single biggest
> issue I have in my primary relationship is the fear that my primary will
> end up treating me in the same way as other partners have done in the
> past. It's an irrational fear and it doesn't respond well to rationality.
> Most of the time I keep it under control, but every now and then
> something will surface and I'll get scared. I'll say something very
> similar to what Gwynyth said, and the response I'll get will be "Can't
> you learn that I'm not him? Why do you think all your boyfriends will
> treat you the same way?". All this does is make me get upset. Do you
> have some suggestions for a way to broach the subject "X makes me
> uncomfortable because it's what <ex> did" without a partner assuming
> that I am comparing him to my ex?
Thinking about it, part of why it works for me is that my actual direct
relationships have been very few.
My ex-fiance. Darkhawk's partner in a sortof undefined way. (But he's a
sweetheart, and a very sane person, and he and I are very able to have
discussions which drive Darkhawk crazy because they have almost no
emotional content. He's prone to putting my head back together very
tidily after making it face up to reason. [1]) My local ex. My current
SO.
One of those was *extraordinarily* irrational (and a number of people
who were around at that time are around to confirm that to my current
SO). It was also my first relationship. The local SO touched on some
similar issues regarding communication and negotiation and available
conversations.
My current SO, we've mostly avoided those with. I've told him what
things make me nervous (F'rex: someone saying that spending time with me
is important, but always allowing other things to take precedence. I do
mean always. Sometimes doesn't bother me, so long as it feels like
everything is in reasonable balance). I tell him if he hits a bit of
past history I didn't realise was problematic, and we go on from there.
My current SO also understands that my original relationship was *very*
non-normal (as regards how one treats someone one claims to love) and
that it is taking me time to rewire my brain. It's mostly back to a
comfortable place now, and he knows that too.)
I guess what I do doesn't work for a lot of people - my current SO
*knows* that he's not being compared to my ex-fiance (except in very
positive ways), but I'd hate myself if I hid the fact that I'm overjoyed
that he *doesn't* do those things (because the simple fact that he
doesn't, and that it's foreign to his nature to do so brings me
incredible joy. Him sitting there like he is at the moment, not quite
sure what to say, but *being* there, and hugging me occaisionally online
and being around if I want to say something) [1]
But *because* that brings me joy, when he does something differently
from what I fear, I tell him. I tell him if he does something
inadvertanetly, because as he pointed out in logic I couldn't argue with
"I love you, I don't want to hurt you. I need to know what hurts you and
why so I can avoid doing that." (Particularly for me as the 'why' is a
large part of whether or not it really hurts.)
[1] I had a *really* lousy day at work [2], in a way that is
particularly icky because it's making me wonder if I'm hallucinating or
if there's something otherwise completely off kilter between my bit of
the universe and the rest of it. That scares me, and makes me *really*
uneasy. Which is part of why (having tracked down two of the five people
I want to talk to about this and having had them tell me it'll be ok,
and that the things I'm feeling aren't like me, and they don't see how I
could be producing them to the extent they seem to be produced), I need
to track down Darkhawk and her partner, and see if they have time to
talk and help me figure out what to do about this gap in the universe.
(And He Who I Am Not Dating, but he's easier to find when I'm up for
talking to him.)
[2] I actually have my resume in for a job I would *dearly* love to have
for a vast number of reasons, so any prayers/good wishes/murmurs in the
likely-to-be-obliging direction of choice would be appreciated. The last
day for resumes to be submitted was last Friday, so they're in the
process of looking at them now, presumably.
Gwynyth
> "Stef Maruch" <st...@baygate.bayarea.net> wrote:
> > (3) Some people grow up with a cultural guideline: "Don't make requests
> > unless they're very important, and don't refuse other people's requests
> > unless you absolutely have to."
>
> Really? That seems so self-sacrificing to me. My partner always
> says "if you don't ask, then you never have the opportunity to be
> told 'yes.'"
Yep. It is now possible to get me to express a preference as to what
kind of food I want to eat in public. Or what I want to do of an
evening, without a lot of humming and hawing and waiting to see what
everyone else wants to do.
That's only happened in the last year or so, however.
And it *is* self sacrificing. But I'm from Catholic and Jewish
background, culturally, and the combination does rather lay it heavy on
"do for the good of those around you, good for you will appear as a
result" side of theory-of-running-of-lives. And the bits that aren't
Catholic and Jewish are "Work really hard, and don't ask for much, and
things will work.")
(Part of the fact it got better was due to my local ex, who used to give
me a wideish selection of choice and then flat out refuse to say
anything further about his preferences until I made a choice. It's a
sort of tricky thing to do, because pushing it too far would have been
bad, but he was pretty good at recognising 'not a good time for this'
very quickly.)
I *still* have real trouble asking.
I am getting better at it, but it's something I'm only even averagely
good at with a very small and select number of people. Admitting to a
loved one that I'm upset is still a matter of very recent memory (the
last 18months or so?) and it's still not easy, let alone automatic.
Saying "Wait, I don't want to go out this weekend, I'm not up to it. I
am up to doing something here if I don't have to go out and if you don't
care that I haven't cleaned recently. If you wanted to appear with
swashbuckler movies and a pizza from the gormet bake-your-own place,
that'd be great." is also really recent. (Prior to that, I'd either say
yes, or I'd say no, I wouldn't try to offer alternatives under most
circumstances.)
But yes, I was brought up that way.
I was allowed to make requests, but they had to be well thought out, and
generally in categories where my parents said "You have to do one of X
category, but you can choose what one." And one did not refuse requests
made by my parents. You just *didn't*. There were very few orders in my
house. There didn't need to be.
(Example: "You have to learn to play two musical instruments. That's
what people in this family do. One of them is going to be piano, and the
other can be what you choose. You want to play flute? You do realise
there are a lot of them in the world? Ok. you cna play flute." (They
did, in the latter case, let me pick up bassoon when I came to agree
with them in high school about there being far too many flute players in
proportion to the number any sane group actually needs.)
I was allowed to make requests, but they had to be well thought out, and
generally in categories where my parents said "You have to do one of X
category, but you can choose what one." And one did not refuse requests
made by my parents. You just *didn't*. There were very few orders in my
house. There didn't need to be.
It makes it much easier for me to choose from a range of 'choices
already deemed appropriate' than it does to think outside the box. There
*are* cases where I've done things my family would not necessarily deem
appropriate (poly, f'rex, and I know they don't get a lot of my interest
in gaming, both of which are major parts of my life) but by and large, I
don't have strong feelings about most things that they wouldn't find
suitable.
Which is why it works for me. I know intellectually (and even know some
people like that) that there are people in the universe who have really
strong opinions about what they want to see, and what they want to do,
and what they want to eat, and for whom it is important to express those
but I *don't*, often. And I figure that if I don't have strong
preferences, then if one of the suggested options is something I'd
enjoy, I can go off and do the other thing on my own later, if I really
want to. Or,given the make up of my friends, probably find someone else
who wants to do it too.
So why should *I* inflict my broader tastes (where a number of things
would make me about as happy) on people who are pickier. That just
seems.. rude, somehow. I'm not sure rude is the word, but... Well,
inappropriate, anyway.
There are things I don't compromise on (ethics in dealing with other
people is one of them) and there are things I have very strong feelings
about, but by and large, they're not in areas that get asked about on
more than academically *or* they're things that are so fundamental
(ethics in dealing with others) that I don't spend much time around
people who have significantly different values for those things.
(In other words, the people I spend time with all more or less agree on
how one treats other human beings, and for that matter, other beings. So
the differences tend to show up in things like movie and food and
entertainment preferences, for example, if we're local to each other.)
piranha
Rivka <riv...@home.com> wrote:
>
>Probably the best ways to get past this are to front-load this type of
>statement with a compliment, and - as Angi said - to be clear that you
>recognize that your feeling may not be based in fact. To give a fairly
>mundane example from a recent conversation of my own:
>
>"I know you're a good driver - I don't have any doubts about your
>skill - but I get nervous anyway when you come up this close behind
>other cars. It would really help me feel calmer when we're driving if
>you could leave more following distance."
i think this is in general a good idea, but i want to
warn of doing it too much. if nearly all one's com-
pliments are followed by "but", one might as well not
bother anymore after a while, because the other person
will flinch in anticipation.
i had a neighbour who'd do this to her daughter, and i
could see it coming by about a mile, and so could the
daughter. the compliments didn't even feel real any-
more, they just felt like somebody had given her this
advice, to say something nice first, and she was fol-
lowing it to the letter.
this works if one doles out plenty of praise whenever
one feels one's partner has done something neat. and
that's a good idea anyway. IME criticism goes over a
lot better when one doesn't feel as if one can't do any-
thing right.
[i think it was LK who said;]
>> > First shorten the statement: : "X makes feel uncomfortable
>> > because I'm afraid ______________while happen." Totally, drop
>> > the ex bit.
>
>Oh, I disagree. "I think you might act like an utter bastard" is a
>harsh thing to say. It needs a reason, or an explanation. Otherwise,
>Alice's partner is likely to process it as "I think you *are* an utter
>bastard."
you know, if my partner said "i am afraid you might act
like an utter bastard", it wouldn't make me feel at all
better to hear "because my ex behaved like one" tagged
onto it. both sound pretty crappy to me, and frankly,
i think people who make those sorts of comparisons need
to go seek some help elsewhere to learn to manage those
feelings better. either i've behaved like an utter bas-
tard, or not. if not, then i won't care for the compa-
rison. just because i butter my bread the same way the
bastard did doesn't make me one. if somebody gets that
spooked, professional help is in order IMO.
i am willing to help a partner with all sorts of scary
shit. i am not willing to be made to pay for somebody
else's mistakes. guilt by association doesn't play in
my house; if somebody can't tell us apart enough to make
a distinct effort not to fall into this mode, then zie
should not be with me.
irrational fear needs IMO to be marked clearly as such,
not disguised under "well, because X did this to me...".
>"You've done so much to show me that you're someone I can trust, and I
>don't want you to think that those things have gone unnoticed. But
>there's still a part of me that's caught up in old reactions, that
>makes me worry that ____ means you're going to ___. I know that fear
>isn't really based in anything you've done - it's something that I'm
>going to have to figure out how to work through. Please be patient
>with me as I work on this, and know that I'm trying hard to let my
>confidence in your Good Qualities A,B, and C override those fears."
that is much better. this wouldn't bother me much --
i'd prefer if i actually didn't feature in it at all;
sat "...that when anybody does ____, it makes me worry
____ might follow". then i can reassure instead of
feeling insulted and defensive.
-piranha
piranha
Gwynyth <gwy...@polyamory.org> wrote:
>
>[2] I actually have my resume in for a job I would *dearly* love to have
>for a vast number of reasons, so any prayers/good wishes/murmurs in the
>likely-to-be-obliging direction of choice would be appreciated. The last
>day for resumes to be submitted was last Friday, so they're in the
>process of looking at them now, presumably.
*murmur*murmur*murmur*mumble*werfel*murmur.
-piranha
piranha
Angi Long <angi...@home.com> wrote:
>"Stef Maruch" <st...@baygate.bayarea.net> wrote:
>> (3) Some people grow up with a cultural guideline: "Don't make requests
>> unless they're very important,
that's me.
>> and don't refuse other people's requests
>> unless you absolutely have to."
that's no longer me. but i still have to work against
the inital perception that somebody else would only ask
me if it were really important, and so i better have a
good reason for saying "no".
>Really? That seems so self-sacrificing to me.
not really. i don't sacrifice anything by not asking
others -- i do for myself. it works better than if i
were asking. i get a lot out of doing for myself.
>My partner always
>says "if you don't ask, then you never have the opportunity to be
>told 'yes.'"
if i never asked, sure. but i do ask; when it is im-
portant enough, or urgent enough, or when i am totally
sure it's no big deal. "can you bring me some butter-
milk when you go to the store" type asking i do all the
time.
>> Yes. I think a lot of adults learn somehow to moderate their extreme
>> feelings (or it happens by itself, with aging), and tend to view extreme
>> feelings as childish (or, if they are positive, childlike). So that
>> might add to the disconnect when you are trying to express very strong
>> feelings to another adult.
hm. yes, i know such people. but that's not me. i do,
however, see somebody who has often extreme feelings and
whose feelings must be given in to as a drama queen (non-
gender-specific :-) and probably as self-centred.
>I think this explains some things... I think men I get involved
>with tend to find my extreme positive NRE feelings, and the way I
>take Great Delight in things, childlike and attractive (and the
>NRE, flattering).
i find enthusiasm in people very attractive, yes.
>But if they have another partner, the unusual
>strength of the feelings might be scary to them.
especially if that means there are only wimpy little fee-
lings left for me. NRE junkies don't do it for me; i
like people who can maintain that enthusiasm to a fairly
decent degree.
>And when they
>all later learn that my negative feelings run just as strong as
>my positive, that's "childish" or "immature" or "manipulative."
yeah, it goes to reason if they find the joy childlike,
that they might find the negative aspects childish. i
would be quite wary of a partner who looked at me the
way an amused adult watches a child. i don't even like
to describe my little joys as "childlike" because i think
it's dumb to consider them relegated to childhood. but
then my childhood was sinister, not happy, so i don't
have other people's golden memories to drag me back.
>Maybe things they do which they expect me to at most be moderately
>bothered by, I act like they're tearing my heart out, because to
>me that's what it really feels like.
well, i have a hard time fathoming hearts being torn out
over things that most people would be moderatedly bo-
thered by. isn't there some sort of learning curve for
your feelings? i mean, a beloved dying, that's heart-
rending. your feelings have no perspective?
>I never realized before recently that the way my emotions worked
>might be unusual, so these explanations never occured to me before.
i don't know that they're that unusual. as in, you're
not the first person i've met who feels only 1,3 and 12
on a scale from 1 to 10.
the thing is that you're interacting with people who've
got all sorts of emotional make-ups. it might be inter-
esting if you ever get together with somebody who feels
very similarly. i'd wonder whether you'd feel like
"soul mates" or whether you'd like to tear each other's
hair out. :-)
-piranha
Angi Long
> Angi Long <angi...@home.com> wrote:
> > "Stef Maruch" <st...@baygate.bayarea.net> wrote:
> > > (3) Some people grow up with a cultural guideline: "Don't make requests
> > > unless they're very important, and don't refuse other people's requests
> > > unless you absolutely have to."
> > Really? That seems so self-sacrificing to me. My partner always
> > says "if you don't ask, then you never have the opportunity to be
> > told 'yes.'"
> And it *is* self sacrificing. But I'm from Catholic and Jewish
> background, culturally, and the combination does rather lay it heavy on
> "do for the good of those around you, good for you will appear as a
> result" side of theory-of-running-of-lives.
Yeah, I'm familiar with that. I grew up Catholic, too, and, taking
things literally, I used to believe that I was obligated to Be Like
Jesus and give give give and never think of my own needs at all. I
don't think I ever quite extended it to not asking for things if I
wanted them, though. I guess it is a logical extension that if
everybody followed the same ethic I did, asking was the same as de-
manding, because no one would ever say no. But it never did appear
to me that others *did* follow that ethic. I thought it was my job
to be the sacrificer and the savior and the scapegoat, and I didn't
expect it of others.
In fact this is a large part of the reason for my "slut phase" in
high school. I believed I was doing good, bringing pleasure to
people. It didn't matter whether I particularly wanted it or not.
I wasn't capable of saying no. Once I remember a guy brought a
friend along to sneak in my bedroom window. He said "I figured he
could 'get some,' too." I didn't enjoy it, but I didn't say no.
I was giving more pleasure to others. That was my job.
I guess I didn't realize that other people might still be as
screwed up as I was then. Or I thought that, since I had wised up
and finally realized (not that many years ago) that I *had* to
start considering my own needs or I was going to destroy myself
and then be able to give nothing to anyone, everyone else must
have wised up by now, too. Actually since I'm so much slower at
learning these things than everyone else, if I realized this a few
years ago, then everyone else must have known it for decades.
Right?
> Which is why it works for me. I know intellectually (and even know some
> people like that) that there are people in the universe who have really
> strong opinions about what they want to see, and what they want to do,
> and what they want to eat, and for whom it is important to express those
> but I *don't*, often. [ . . . ]
> So why should *I* inflict my broader tastes (where a number of things
> would make me about as happy) on people who are pickier. That just
> seems.. rude, somehow. I'm not sure rude is the word, but... Well,
> inappropriate, anyway.
Yeah, I'm like that too. Passive in some kinds of decision-
making, a "follower," because I just don't have feelings that
strong one way or the other about where to go or which movie to
see or what to eat (although as I've developed some dietary re-
strictions, my feelings on the last one have gotten stronger --
now I don't like going to restaurants where it may be difficult
to find anything I can safely eat). But when I do have strong
feelings, I speak up now.
Rivka
"Angi Long" <angi...@home.com> wrote in message
news:pTKa5.8637$V34.1...@news1.sttls1.wa.home.com...
biggest
> > >issue I have in my primary relationship is the fear that my
primary
> > >will end up treating me in the same way as other partners have
> > >uncomfortable because it's what <ex> did" without a partner
> > >assuming that I am comparing him to my ex?
I find that it helps a lot to have partners with scars of their own.
If I recall correctly, your primary didn't have a whole lot of
relationship experience before getting involved with you. (Um, *am* I
recalling that correctly?) If you don't have gut knowledge of what
it's like to live in a minefield, it takes time and effort to develop
an understanding of what it does to a person's perspective.
And his vulnerabilities come into play here, too. When you say "I'm
afraid you might behave the way X did," he might be hearing "Alice
thinks that I'm a lousy jerk, just like X," or "Alice thinks that men
are all alike," or "Alice must not even notice all the ways that I'm
good to her, or she would never think that I might be like X."
Probably the best ways to get past this are to front-load this type of
statement with a compliment, and - as Angi said - to be clear that you
recognize that your feeling may not be based in fact. To give a fairly
mundane example from a recent conversation of my own:
"I know you're a good driver - I don't have any doubts about your
skill - but I get nervous anyway when you come up this close behind
other cars. It would really help me feel calmer when we're driving if
you could leave more following distance."
There *are* probably people out there who would get defensive and
angry in response to a comment phrased this way, but I would imagine
that they're few. It's also hard to argue with. What's he going to
say, "you are *not* nervous?" "I don't care if you're calm or not?" If
he says something like "you're just not used to how close people
follow each other in cities" (which is probably true), that doesn't
defuse my point - I can say, "I know, and I hope I'll be more
comfortable soon. But until then it would really help if you were
to..." I'm acknowledging that my concern isn't 100% logical, and
framing it as a favor to me.
> > First shorten the statement: : "X makes feel uncomfortable
> > because I'm afraid ______________while happen." Totally, drop
> > the ex bit.
Oh, I disagree. "I think you might act like an utter bastard" is a
harsh thing to say. It needs a reason, or an explanation. Otherwise,
Alice's partner is likely to process it as "I think you *are* an utter
bastard."
> I would think this might get the reaction "don't you trust me to not
> let _________ happen?" It might be better to make it clear that
> you know this is not a rational feeling, that you know ________ is
> not really likely to happen, but your feeling happens nonetheless.
Yes. Angi, I think this is a very important point.
Alice, what if you said something like this?
"You've done so much to show me that you're someone I can trust, and I
don't want you to think that those things have gone unnoticed. But
there's still a part of me that's caught up in old reactions, that
makes me worry that ____ means you're going to ___. I know that fear
isn't really based in anything you've done - it's something that I'm
going to have to figure out how to work through. Please be patient
with me as I work on this, and know that I'm trying hard to let my
confidence in your Good Qualities A,B, and C override those fears."
--
Rivka is riv...@home.com and a resident in clinical health psychology.
"I don't long for a gender-free society, but I would dearly love one
that wasn't gender-*stupid*." - Elise Matthesen
Louise
>"LK" <founta...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> astral alice <al...@death.org.uk> wrote:
>> >I find even saying "I feel" doesn't work. The absolute single biggest
>> >issue I have in my primary relationship is the fear that my primary will
>> >end up treating me in the same way as other partners have done in the
>> >past. It's an irrational fear and it doesn't respond well to rationality.
>> >Most of the time I keep it under control, but every now and then
>> >something will surface and I'll get scared. I'll say something very
>> >similar to what Gwynyth said, and the response I'll get will be "Can't
>> >you learn that I'm not him? Why do you think all your boyfriends will
>> >treat you the same way?". All this does is make me get upset. Do you
>> >have some suggestions for a way to broach the subject "X makes me
>> >uncomfortable because it's what <ex> did" without a partner assuming
>> >that I am comparing him to my ex?
>
>> First shorten the statement: : "X makes feel uncomfortable because I'm
>> afraid ______________while happen." Totally, drop the ex bit.
>
>I would think this might get the reaction "don't you trust me to not
>let _________ happen?" It might be better to make it clear that you
>know this is not a rational feeling, that you know ________ is not
>really likely to happen, but your feeling happens nonetheless.
I agree more with Angi than with LK. When I get feelings like alice
describes, it seems important to me to give my partners the message "I
know this *isn't* all about you / the present, it's partly / all about
former partners / my mother / my former advisor / old stuff", and
ideally also to find a way to demonstrate that I'm working to separate
the real situation from the old fears. I hope that when I'm able to
point to some resonances that are affecting my reactions [I'm not
always this mindful], my partners might be more generous about the
fact that my reactions are not *fair*.
I am certain that it helps me to identify those resonances myself,
though, whether or not I end up sharing them with the other people
affected. I definitely don't tell my work superiors that I avoid
talking to them because I'm afraid they're really like B, but when I
recognize those feelings I write about them privately and talk to safe
people about them. My counsellor gets me to talk about some of these
feeling-memories in ways that help me deal with the "unfinished-
business" aspects of them. I'm sorry that I don't have any good
suggestions for how you can share these feelings productively with
your partner. Nevertheless, I want to encourage you to continue
paying attention to what past situations your feelings remind you of.
Louise
Copyright 2000, Louise lou...@cyberus.ca
"Due to time and space limitations we can only accommodate up to
two people for friends and couples photos"
- Jostens graduation portrait leaflet
Rivka
"piranha" <pir...@gooroos.com> wrote in message
news:8kgun6$k64$1...@excalibur.gooroos.com...
> >of statement with a compliment, and - as Angi said - to be clear
> >that you recognize that your feeling may not be based in fact.
> i think this is in general a good idea, but i want to
> warn of doing it too much. if nearly all one's com-
> pliments are followed by "but", one might as well not
> bother anymore after a while, because the other person
> will flinch in anticipation.
Good point. I was assuming the presence of frequent compliments and
praise, unlinked to trouble issues, but of course that's not a
universal assumption.
>this works if one doles out plenty of praise whenever
>one feels one's partner has done something neat. and
>that's a good idea anyway. IME criticism goes over a
>lot better when one doesn't feel as if one can't do any-
>thing right.
Yes. Another thing that's very important IMO is being sure to
acknowledge any changes - even the beginnings of changes - that one's
partner makes in response to a criticism or request. Too many times,
I've changed something about my behavior in response to a request,
only to find that the other person doesn't even seem to notice or
appreciate my efforts. So I try to say things like, "I've noticed that
since we talked about X, you've been doing a lot more Y and Z. I
wanted to let you know that I appreciate that - it really makes me
feel loved and cared for [and reduces specific problem A that we'd
been having]."
Rivka
piranha
Rivka <riv...@home.com> wrote:
>
>Yes. Another thing that's very important IMO is being sure to
>acknowledge any changes - even the beginnings of changes - that one's
>partner makes in response to a criticism or request.
oh, yes.
>Too many times,
>I've changed something about my behavior in response to a request,
>only to find that the other person doesn't even seem to notice or
>appreciate my efforts.
yup. i know it can be difficult, if one is hoping for
a bigger change, and what is happening seems to go very
slowly and not big enough, but i think it's important
to be encouraging, not nagging.
>So I try to say things like, "I've noticed that
>since we talked about X, you've been doing a lot more Y and Z. I
>wanted to let you know that I appreciate that - it really makes me
>feel loved and cared for [and reduces specific problem A that we'd
>been having]."
i am really glad that i usually _feel_ that way, so i can
say it and mean it. i am not sure what i'd do if i didn't
feel that way; if i were impatient, and felt held back by
a partner.
unrelated to what started this discussion, i sometimes do
wonder how a person can make it work who is very NRE-mo-
tivated, for whom much of the joy is in the newness, and
in the being swept away by it all -- what if zir partner
wants zir to go slow? we do tend to recommend that here
for a skittish partner, but, not being terribly impulsive
myself (and not respecting it much), it's hard for me to
assess the price of slowing down for somebody for whom the
speed actually heightens the enjoyment.
-piranha
Angi Long
> Angi Long <angi...@home.com> wrote:
> >"Stef Maruch" <st...@baygate.bayarea.net> wrote:
> >> (3) Some people grow up with a cultural guideline: "Don't make requests
> >> unless they're very important,
> >> and don't refuse other people's requests
> >> unless you absolutely have to."
> >Really? That seems so self-sacrificing to me.
> not really. i don't sacrifice anything by not asking
> others -- i do for myself. it works better than if i
> were asking. i get a lot out of doing for myself.
How do you "do for yourself" if the request you're not making is
"please stop doing something which is hurting me" or "would you
accompany me to someplace this Friday night?" Just go alone, and
put up with the being hurt?
Or the kinds of requests that I think started this line of dis-
cussion: "we have a family gathering next Tuesday, would you
mind switching days with me so I can bring our daughter to that?"
What would "do for myself" mean in that case?
> >My partner always
> >says "if you don't ask, then you never have the opportunity to be
> >told 'yes.'"
> if i never asked, sure. but i do ask; when it is im-
> portant enough, or urgent enough, or when i am totally
> sure it's no big deal. "can you bring me some butter-
> milk when you go to the store" type asking i do all the
> time.
I have no idea whether or not something will be a "big deal" if I
don't ask. Especially if every time I ask, the person says yes
without hesitation or any mention that it's a big deal at all,
then how can I ever be expected to suspect that it might be a big
deal? Until one day they blow up at me and tell me how much they
have always resented my using them to pick things up from the
store.
> >Maybe things they do which they expect me to at most be moderately
> >bothered by, I act like they're tearing my heart out, because to
> >me that's what it really feels like.
> well, i have a hard time fathoming hearts being torn out
> over things that most people would be moderatedly bo-
> thered by. isn't there some sort of learning curve for
> your feelings? i mean, a beloved dying, that's heart-
> rending. your feelings have no perspective?
I don't know, I've never felt anybody else's feelings, so I can't
really compare very well. I'm just guessing, really. It's hard
to come up with an example right now, but I think it would be
fair to say that others think I "overreact" to things.
> >I never realized before recently that the way my emotions worked
> >might be unusual, so these explanations never occured to me before.
> i don't know that they're that unusual. as in, you're
> not the first person i've met who feels only 1,3 and 12
> on a scale from 1 to 10.
Well, that's good to know -- maybe it's unusual, but not *too*
much so :)
> the thing is that you're interacting with people who've
> got all sorts of emotional make-ups. it might be inter-
> esting if you ever get together with somebody who feels
> very similarly. i'd wonder whether you'd feel like
> "soul mates" or whether you'd like to tear each other's
> hair out. :-)
It would probably depend on whether we felt strongly in the same
directions on the same things :)
Ryk
wrote:
>I have no idea whether or not something will be a "big deal" if I
>don't ask. Especially if every time I ask, the person says yes
>without hesitation or any mention that it's a big deal at all,
>then how can I ever be expected to suspect that it might be a big
>deal?
You might try gradations of asking. Around here we often run into
conversations that go some thing like:
"Would you like to go X now/later/specific time?"
"Not really"
"I would like to X and I would like it if you came with me to X"
"Sure!" or "No I really don't feel like X, maybe Y would go with
you..."
etc.
Ryk
LK
wrote:
>On Tue, 11 Jul 2000 19:49:41 GMT, Angi Long <angi...@home.com> warbled:
>
>: "LK" <founta...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>:> astral alice <al...@death.org.uk> wrote:
>:> >I find even saying "I feel" doesn't work. The absolute single biggest
>:> >issue I have in my primary relationship is the fear that my primary will
>:> >end up treating me in the same way as other partners have done in the
>:> >past. It's an irrational fear and it doesn't respond well to rationality.
>:> >Most of the time I keep it under control, but every now and then
>:> >something will surface and I'll get scared. I'll say something very
>:> >similar to what Gwynyth said, and the response I'll get will be "Can't
>:> >you learn that I'm not him? Why do you think all your boyfriends will
>:> >treat you the same way?". All this does is make me get upset. Do you
>:> >have some suggestions for a way to broach the subject "X makes me
>:> >uncomfortable because it's what <ex> did" without a partner assuming
>:> >that I am comparing him to my ex?
>
>:> First shorten the statement: : "X makes feel uncomfortable because I'm
>:> afraid ______________while happen." Totally, drop the ex bit.
>
>: I would think this might get the reaction "don't you trust me to not
>: let _________ happen?"
>
>it might get that reaction, and my answer to that would be "no, i *don't*
>trust you to not let ____ happen." if the other person had said what you
>say above, angi, in a non-snarky way, then i would go on to elaborate that
>it wasn't about whether or not they were trustable, it was about whether
>or not i was capable of trusting about ____, and i'm sorry if that is a
>hurtful thing, but that's the way the inside of my head works, and the way
>the inside of my head works is not a negotiable relationship point.
>
>(i'm perfectly willing to work on rearranging the inside of my head if it
>annoys *me*, and if it causes relationship issues, it likely will annoy
>me. but i'm not willing to let other people decide which bits need
>rearranging.)
>
>: It might be better to make it clear that you
>: know this is not a rational feeling, that you know ________ is not
>: really likely to happen, but your feeling happens nonetheless.
>
>this is a good thing to make clear, yes.
You're both right in that it can provoke that reaction and that is why
the other party has to _ work and accept _ that's the way the
individual is and it's not solved overnight and it can recurr when
something triggers it years later.
The other day spouse said, "If I was going to leave you, don't think I
would have done so by now?" (We weren't fighting; I was talking about
an almost irrational feeling I had and as a prelude to a later
important discussion.) And I replied, "No. Because I know how
stubborn you are and how you hang on believing things will change."
He gave me a now- you-better-look. Of all the people he's hung onto
through misery, I'm pracitically only the one who has changed for the
better; the others have continued to self-destruct or disapeared. And
because _I've_ become healthier he believed others would, too.
We;re both annoyed when certain issues recurr but we've only known
each other for 10 years and I had 25-30 years of crappy "programing"
begining in childhood before that and that is deep programing that
takes years to grow out of. And he's dealing with his issues now, his
crappy programing, that he didn't before because _his_ mind is now
clearer because his glucose is not flooding his brain chemistry. He's
becoming a different person in some things and we both deal with
commitment to _his_ changes. We're not ideal partners, but we work
pretty well together. It's the working well together that keeps us
together and going. And working well is the basis of our commitment.
I think partners who nuture and support each other thru healing,
whether it's psychotheraputic healing or long-term serious illness
deserve some kind of combat pay. Newt Gingrich, who personally
delivered the divorce petition to his 1st? wife in her hospital bed
while she underwent cancer treatment, doesn't qualify. He's on #3
now, who used to be his congressional intern, from what I've heard.
(That was probably the real reason he resigned after his campaign to
politically lynch Clinton.)
LK whose stream of consciousness is going wide afield today.
LK
LK:
>> > First shorten the statement: : "X makes feel uncomfortable
>> > because I'm afraid ______________while happen." Totally, drop
>> > the ex bit.
>
>Oh, I disagree. "I think you might act like an utter bastard" is a
>harsh thing to say. It needs a reason, or an explanation. Otherwise,
>Alice's partner is likely to process it as "I think you *are* an utter
>bastard."
Did I say "utter bastard"? That never occurred to me. Name calling
solves absolutely nothing. It's only throwing mud so you _dont' have
to talk_ about the problem.
I don't talk to people who can't talk without name calling or gross
labelling or even swearing. They're not thinking and listening,
they're just yelling. If it's going on, I tend to become very calm
and ask they stop name calling or whatever. If they don't, I end the
conversation/communication. If they can't think enough to use civil
language, they can't think enough to even try to talk about the
issue/problem.
It reminds me of "Chasing Amy" wherein they spent so much time
swearing and name calling they rarely got to the issues. The
protagonist was a expert at putting his new girlfriend through an
emtional wringer. He wanted to punish more than he wanted the
relationship. And that's he what got. Same for his comic book
partner, punish the protagonsit because the protagonist didn't love
him.
Things like "utter bastard" are non-starters and the parties have
failed before even begining.
In non-issue conversation I may quietly label my ex-bfs or ex-spouse
a "bastard," but that term doesn't even begin to cover his harm, so I
don't even try to put labels on him beyond "sadist psychopath spouse &
child-beating liar" which still doesn't cover or describe what he did
and what he threatened to do. So, I focus on me, how I feel,
specifically what I fear or am concerned about. And--I'm saying this
mildly, not yelling--I'll be damned if I'll get into a screaming or
name calling match that only distracts me/us from the problems and
cause more hard feeling and damage to my trust in another or my trust
in my self. Getting distracted was part of how I got in so deep and
hurt so bad. That ex was an expert on distracting me from problems
and issues and his use of name calling and labels was very effective
technique that I don't buy into from anyone any more. --If zie can't
talk, then we don't talk until we can talk. --And frustates the bleep
out of those whose only goal is to hurt, because I don't hang around
to play _their_ game by _their_ destructive rules.
LK
Lynn Dobbs
piranha at pir...@gooroos.com says...
> >skill - but I get nervous anyway when you come up this close behind
> >other cars. It would really help me feel calmer when we're driving if
> >you could leave more following distance."
>
> warn of doing it too much. if nearly all one's com-
> pliments are followed by "but", one might as well not
> bother anymore after a while, because the other person
> will flinch in anticipation.
Amen. And when my ex did this, the better the compliment the
worse the conversation was going to be.
In the case of the driver example, I just state what is so for
me. i.e. "I am nervous about how close you tend to follow cars."
Then the person can back off a bit or I can choose not to ride
with that person in the future.
Lynn Dobbs
www.bethechange.net | "You must be the change
www.lambdaletters.org | you wish to see in the
www.hai.org | world." M.K. Gandhi
Aahz Maruch
piranha <pir...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> unrelated to what started this discussion, i sometimes do
> wonder how a person can make it work who is very NRE-mo-
> tivated, for whom much of the joy is in the newness, and
> in the being swept away by it all -- what if zir partner
> wants zir to go slow? we do tend to recommend that here
> for a skittish partner, but, not being terribly impulsive
> myself (and not respecting it much), it's hard for me to
> assess the price of slowing down for somebody for whom the
> speed actually heightens the enjoyment.
I'm sure there are people who really do need the NRE to start new
relationships, but I think many people are like me and just have grown
up with the DC [*] meme. While I miss the major rush of NRE in some
ways, having stable relationships is more important to me.
[*] Disney Chemicals
--
--- Aahz (Copyright 2000 by aa...@netcom.com)
Androgynous poly kinky vanilla queer het <*> http://www.rahul.net/aahz/
Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6
"do you want my self-identities alphabetically, chronologically, or in
random order?" -- Misha