support?? was: irc m*t*rb*t*on thread
allison
In article <6ns09a$ujn$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, you say:
>
>Spoiler for s*x*al references, and despair, and assorted not pleasant stuff.
>
>
>10
>9
>8
>7
>6
>5
>4
>3
>2
>2
>1
>0
>
>
>In article <6nkbdu$c3s$1...@twwells.com>,
> anon-...@anon.twwells.com (allison) wrote:
>>
>[...]
>>
>> thanks caroline, i just think there isn't much more i can or want to
>> say about this topic. somehow the original issues have
>> become tainted with the brush of p*dophilia, child p*orn, etc
>> and i feel a bit slimed by it as well as feeling unsafe to speak.
>> i have felt that too often in my life.
>
>I replied to this post earlier, and I think I muttered something about rising
>above it all and sticking to convictions or whatever. I felt, at the time,
>buoyed by the strength of my hope and belief, by the importance of the s*x
>threads to the participants, by the awesome feelings of camaraderie I felt
>when the discussions were open and free and untainted.
wasn't it just very special? 'awesome' is a perfect word for it Laurie.
while it lasted....
>
>But I can't maintain this stuff, and I'm not all that sure why. I don't have
>a foothold anymore. I feel like I've just been fooling myself, about
>everything sexual. And I've been fighting that feeling, because I don't
>understand what it even _means_. =(
please Laurie, i share your feeling of despair, but i'm going to keep
trying. heck most folks won't even read this due to the subject
header so what the hell? i care about you Laurie, i appeciate that
very sensitivity that is now causing you such pain. please don't give
up the searching, the sharing. i know that it will take me a long time
before i discuss anything here that i feel will leave me vulnerable to
attack, but dang it all i have as much right to be here discussing
issues that are crucial to my life, as anyone else does. and you
know, it's not even direct attacks, it's those 'unnamed' folks in
the threads, its the 'kicks' innuendoes, constant admonitions that
'safety' of others is not being considered so we've been 'thoughtless'
as well. nothing real direct, just the little shaming comments, sort
of likw water on a rock - wears you down after awhile.
>
>I know this is as much about me as it is about anything else. I believe in too
>damn much sometimes, and I hope too intensely.
i just read a letter from someone saying 'gee folks, take it to email'
- another one who doesn't understand the importance of the sense of
'community' this gave me. i was afraid each time i pressed the send
button during these threads, yet somehow, someone reached out to
me and confirmed that things i said and felt were 'okay'. that is
what i'm trying to remember each time i read a post that hurts now.
i, too, have a lot of hope that someday i'll wander into another
group like we had going. i'm trying to remember the insights that
i received, the care, the vulnerability of you and others on these
threads and i feel honored to have shared things with you that i don't
have too many other places to share.
>
>> today when that happens, i can move on and that's what i will be doing,
>
>I don't know where to move on TO. I've gotten myself stuck in this mode where
>it's sexuality or flatness. I know there are other issues in my past, but
>what I haven't resolved, I'm TIRED of and have been tired of for a long time.
>Sexuality feels like the one thing that I can explore and maybe turn into
>something good, something right. Something right that went so damn wrong all
>these years.
i related so much to things you wrote Laurie - and that was/is a profound
gift - i didn't feel quite so alone. as far as moving to somewhere,
i'll still be here. maybe some folks would prefer it if i wasn't
<shrug> but them's the breaks. i'm tired too - and perhaps will
stop reading threads that tell me that s*xuality issues have no place
on a ng. gee, maybe we all should ask that those types of posts
be spoilered too so that we, *who are also members of this group, and
who also have feelings* don't have to continue to read about how
inappropriate we are! how unnamed persons are getting 'kicks' out
of it, using threads to 'seduce' folks, having to clarify and explain
our very presence here. clarify exactly how this all relates to
dissociation for folks who haven't even read the posts! and just how
do you begin to do that when the very words trigger them all to
pieces??? Feh!!!
>
>It feels USELESS for me to focus on past abuse that is all mixed up ... dull
>and flat at best, and confusingly triggery at worst. It feels USELESS for me
>to focus on my profound lack of assertiveness and inability to emote IRL,
>because I can NOT do it.
usually i'm pretty emotionless - seeming in my posts too, but i'm tired of
being hurt and i'm tired of seeing my friends hurt. the name of
the group is 'alt.SUPPORT.dissociation' and what i've seen from
people here has been less than supportive. it's an atmosphere
of shaming and judgment on others. and that's not been universal
at all, it just 'feels' that way.
yes, i've said that we are all at different stages of recovery, but i
NEVER meant that 'my stage is better or further along' than anyone
else's! i'm just at a point in my life where these issues are important
to ME! and to several others - just because some folks aren't wanting
to deal with that, why are we being put on the defensive and hurt?
i feel dismissed,
>
>What feels USEFUL (and good, and right, and promising) is to explore
>something that once felt ugly but now feels beautiful. But I just feel it
>slipping away. And what's scary is that the more it does, the more I start
>feeling this dull feeling that maybe it's just as well. It hurts for my
>belief to get this shaky.
and Laurie, it *is* beautiful, and ggod. there were too many years
where it didn't feel that way, too much abuse, too much broken inside
but it's worth the fight - the inner fight to find who *you* are,
to flower and grow. its taken way too long for me to get where i am
today to let it go, it's prcious to me. s*xuality - that scary word
that always has to be splatted and spoilered - is beautiful with the
right person and at the right time. its not disgusting, the body
and its responses aren't shameful - it's a normal and natural thing
and exploring the reasons we are who we are, and why we feel
the way we do, allows to begin to love and trust ourselves and our
patners more.
>
>
>> have appreciated those with whom i was able to speak, your openness
>> and courage allowed me to be that way also for a bit and i gained some new
>> insights and understandings of myself, and for that i am grateful.
>>
>
>Me too. While it lasted, this was the closest I've ever felt to being part of
>a group. Now, I just feel really empty and alone. And I guess in a way, it
>feels like a reminder that I just _can't_ belong.
you DO belong!!! you are NOT alone!!!
>
>My feelings are really confused at the moment, and I'm not trying to blame
>anyone for them. I understand some of the negative reactions toward the sex
>threads; not all of them, but some. But I don't know what else we could have
>done but what we did do.
i can't understand that either. i simply can't. i've tried not to
react in anger or fear. i used to do that on this very group years ago.
i was always welcome to talk about childhood s*xual abuse, i gave really
graphic descriptions of what happened to me as a child and teen and
was given suppport, acceptance, care. yet when i come back to write
about the *good* things i'm discovering about s*xuality, it's met with
silence, requests to go elsewhere, judgments. makes no sense to me.
believe me, i *was* s*xually abused from before i can remember till i
ran away at 17 years to end up in a loveless marriage. well, i'm in
my early 40's and i want something more out of life to remember, than
the abuse. it's just where i am - that lifetime will always be with
me, but we have a chance - those of us who feel ready - to discuss
different ways that we have found to try to live well, despite that.
>
>> take care everyone.
>>
>> allison
>>
>
>You're a sweetheart, allison.
am not!! i'm a cranky old lady, with a broken wing,who's up
past her bedtime and feeling angry that you and i and others have been hurt
needlessly, seems to me. we followed the conventions set forth
in the faq and still are being told to take it to email - feh!
I think these threads were good for you, no
>matter what the outcome. I think they added a layer of strength to you. I
>know I saw a stronger allison emerge from these threads, and I remain
>impressed. I hope you feel safer again, for all sorts of purposes relating to
>healing and to life.
well, i want that for all of us, not just those who participated in
the threads - all of us.
>
>Laurie, out of sync
(((hugs, Laurie))) very in sync with me - not so sure if that's
good or not <g>
allison
--
For more information about this service, send e-mail to:
he...@anon.twwells.com -- for an automatically returned help message
ad...@anon.twwells.com -- for the service's administrator
ano...@anon.twwells.com -- anonymous mail to the administrator
Mosaics
allison wrote:
>
[...]
> i'm tired too - and perhaps will stop reading threads that tell me that
> s*x*ality issues have no place on a ng. gee, maybe we all should ask that
> those types of posts be spoilered too so that we, *who are also members
> of this group, and who also have feelings* don't have to continue to read
> about how inappropriate we are!
You could ask.
> how unnamed persons are getting 'kicks' out of it, using threads to
>'seduce' folks,
Ahem...since afaik, I've been the only one to address s*d*ct*on, I'm going to
take this as referring to what I've said. I ask that you please reread what I
wrote, allison. I addressed a concern and gave advice on IF it were happening.
I never said, it WAS happening. Big difference!
> having to clarify and explain our very presence here. clarify exactly how
> this all relates to dissociation for folks who haven't even read the posts!
There has never been a "having to". Ppl responded bc _they_ felt a need to.
No one demanded anyone to speak afaik. I inquired and that's not a crime
even if I haven't read the posts. It's not even a judgment or expectation to get
a response. I've been trying really hard to communicate on this without
passing judgment on anyone. I've asked questions, gave feedback on what ppl
actually shared, shared concerns I have, gave my perception and advice if
certain things were happening and that is all. As far as I can see, I haven't
done anything except engage and attempt to understand and discuss. I fail to
see the problem with what I've shared so far. If you'd like to share _directly_
with me about what you think I've done that is so awful, bad and judgmental,
I'd like to hear it. I much prefer this than you're discussing things I've said in
posts that you think I won't be reading it bc of the thread title. And I quote,
"heck most folks won't even read this due to the subject header so what the
hell?" This isn't at all helpful imo, to the already present discomfort in the
group. Behavior like this drops the trust level imo bc it plants paranoia. It
certainly has for me.
> and just how do you begin to do that when the very words trigger them all
> to pieces??? Feh!!!
Seems to me that ppl so far have been able to share with and without going
into intimate detail. I skip the intimate details bc that's where I'm at. I have
read those who've managed to share without needing to do so and it's
worked! I understood them perfectly. I spose one would have to remember
_who_ their audience is and attempt to find a way to communicate with
them. Sierra of TN
allison
In article <6nsrh8$jme$1...@news-1.news.gte.net>, you say:
>
>Spoiler deleted...not necessary....
>
>allison wrote:
>>
>>[...]
>> i'm tired too - and perhaps will stop reading threads that tell me that
>> s*x*ality issues have no place on a ng. gee, maybe we all should ask that
>> those types of posts be spoilered too so that we, *who are also members
>> of this group, and who also have feelings* don't have to continue to read
>> about how inappropriate we are!
>
>You could ask.
it was a suggestion.
>
>> how unnamed persons are getting 'kicks' out of it, using threads to
>>'seduce' folks,
>
>Ahem...since afaik, I've been the only one to address s*d*ct*on, I'm going
>to take this as referring to what I've said. I ask that you please reread
>what I wrote, allison. I addressed a concern and gave advice on IF it
were >happening.
>I never said, it WAS happening. Big difference!
>
well i couldn't rememder who said what. also within the replies as to
'getting kicks' and 'being inappropriate', no specific names were ever
mentioned. i agree - that is the path to paranoia on the parts of those,
like me, who feel they might have been the person cited but maybe not,
so can't really address it. and to the best of my recall - which
is faulty - you said that there was likely some truth in the validity of
the various claims of impropriety, etc - that no one was delusional.
>
>> having to clarify and explain our very presence here. clarify exactly how
>> this all relates to dissociation for folks who haven't even read the sts!
>There has never been a "having to". Ppl responded bc _they_ felt a need
>to. No one demanded anyone to speak afaik.
>
but then if folks don't reply, it leaves that heavy cloud of suspicion
lying around. and, i admit, i get riled when i see pain caused by
what i call intolerance. when things are scrupulously posted so as to
conform to the faq, respected members of the group are involved, why
are we beibg told to take it elsewhere? it's as if our very presence
is unwanted, i'm tired of feeling unwanted, of not fitting in with
a group of folks i thought i had something in common with. glad the
desire to 'fit' here isn't so strong that i can't stand here and say that
i'm *hurt*. i made myself vulnerable and was judged, namelessly of
course, as inappropriate - which is a charged issue for me.
I inquired and that's not a crime
>even if I haven't read the posts. It's not even a judgment or expectation
>to get a response. I've been trying really hard to communicate on this
>without passng judgment on anyone. I've asked questions, gave feedback on
>what ppl actually shared, shared concerns I have, gave my perception and
>advice if certain things were happening and that is all. As far as I can
>see, I haven't >done anything except engage and attempt to understand and
>discuss.
i know but sometimes your words seem purposely designed so that you
can pull back later and say 'i didn't mean that', ymmv. i admit, i;m
beginning to lose the perpsective woth which i usually try to post.
i feel shame feelings, such as a kid might, but today i can say 'no!
i'm not shameful!'
I fail to
>see the problem with what I've shared so far. If you'd like to share
>directly_ with me about what you think I've done that is so awful, bad and
judgmental,
>I'd like to hear it. I much prefer this than you're discussing things
I've said in
>posts that you think I won't be reading it bc of the thread title. And I
quote,
>"heck most folks won't even read this due to the subject header so what the
>hell?" This isn't at all helpful imo, to the already present discomfort
in the
>group. Behavior like this drops the trust level imo bc it plants
paranoia. It
>certainly has for me.
>
i really wondered about keeping the subject header, it bothered me
that Laurie's pain and despair weren't going to be heard by the very
people who are triggered themselves as they would see the subject
and delete it, unread. *i* feel paranid right now, have for
several days each time i read yet another post saying how triggered
someone is, how fed up they are with the topic, how we should take
it to email - which in my 'paranoid' mind is wanying to hide me
back in the cellar.
>
>> and just how do you begin to do that when the very words trigger them all
>> to pieces??? Feh!!!
>
>Seems to me that ppl so far have been able to share with and without going
>into intimate detail. I skip the intimate details bc that's where I'm at.
I have
>read those who've managed to share without needing to do so and it's
>worked! I understood them perfectly. I spose one would have to remember
>_who_ their audience is and attempt to find a way to communicate with
>them. Sierra of TN
i'm really tired and upset. i usually am quite adept at communication
in a somewhat emotion free manner. but i'm hurting too, other folks
who participated are feeling shame and despair over not being understood.
we have been doing our best to communicate rationally but it doesn't
seem to help. i realize that by now it's probably a dead issue anyway.
those threads are beyond hope now - no amount of cpr is going to
revive them and the trust and safety level is pretty much gone.
anyway, i'm leaving for 5 days but will have net access using my dejanews
account - different name but i'll be sure to let folks know it's me.
i really need this - several days of pampering to allow this
broken wrist to rest, my rationality will probably improve tremendously
too. Mosaics, i do appreciate your efforts to understand and discuss
things despite being triggered and fragile by the topics. i can
only imagine how hard it was to try to read some of them in an effort
to understand more, i thank you.
take care
new_...@email.msn.com
ISP/news provider. Why don't I just close the garage door on my head
3 or 4 times 8P. It would be cheaper...
allison wrote in message <6nsakb$gbf$1...@twwells.com>...
Oh, I really don't think she will. Too much quiet courage.
..sides. I won't ler her give up and she won't let me 8).
>i know that it will take me a long time
>before i discuss anything here that i feel will leave me vulnerable to
>attack, but dang it all i have as much right to be here discussing
>issues that are crucial to my life, as anyone else does. and you
>know, it's not even direct attacks, it's those 'unnamed' folks in
>the threads, its the 'kicks' innuendoes, constant admonitions that
>'safety' of others is not being considered so we've been 'thoughtless'
>as well. nothing real direct, just the little shaming comments, sort
>of likw water on a rock - wears you down after awhile.
>
It's a shame you have to be exposed to this ongoing bluenose
squad--but it's not personal, I don't think. Not like it is with me.
Who knows? If you persevere, you too may upgrade from
''Don't say that awful thing'' to ''Don't say anything, you
awful person'' 8).
>
>>
>>I know this is as much about me as it is about anything else. I believe in
too
>>damn much sometimes, and I hope too intensely.
>
>i just read a letter from someone saying 'gee folks, take it to email'
>- another one who doesn't understand the importance of the sense of
>'community' this gave me. i was afraid each time i pressed the send
>button during these threads, yet somehow, someone reached out to
>me and confirmed that things i said and felt were 'okay'. that is
>what i'm trying to remember each time i read a post that hurts now.
>i, too, have a lot of hope that someday i'll wander into another
>group like we had going. i'm trying to remember the insights that
>i received, the care, the vulnerability of you and others on these
>threads and i feel honored to have shared things with you that i don't
>have too many other places to share.
>
Cynic that I am, I now feel that there ain't no such thing as
a fully respecting group. Any more than there is such a thing
as the ''safe'' group some people seek. (By whatever subjective
definition of safe.)
>>
>>> today when that happens, i can move on and that's what i will be doing,
>>
>>I don't know where to move on TO. I've gotten myself stuck in this mode
where
>>it's sexuality or flatness. I know there are other issues in my past, but
>>what I haven't resolved, I'm TIRED of and have been tired of for a long
time.
>>Sexuality feels like the one thing that I can explore and maybe turn into
>>something good, something right. Something right that went so damn wrong
all
>>these years.
>
>i related so much to things you wrote Laurie - and that was/is a profound
>gift - i didn't feel quite so alone. as far as moving to somewhere,
>i'll still be here. maybe some folks would prefer it if i wasn't
><shrug> but them's the breaks.
THAT is the necessary epiphany. Now you can do pretty much
whatever your conscience says to do.
It's pretty simple, really. Nobody is more important than
you are. Except me. I am more important than anybody
else. Unless I'm you, in which case you are 8).
>i'm tired too - and perhaps will
>stop reading threads that tell me that s*xuality issues have no place
>on a ng. gee, maybe we all should ask that those types of posts
>be spoilered too so that we, *who are also members of this group, and
>who also have feelings* don't have to continue to read about how
>inappropriate we are!
8). You got it. Or we could request that the quibblers take
their stuff to email 8).
>how unnamed persons are getting 'kicks' out
>of it, using threads to 'seduce' folks, having to clarify and explain
>our very presence here. clarify exactly how this all relates to
>dissociation for folks who haven't even read the posts! and just how
>do you begin to do that when the very words trigger them all to
>pieces??? Feh!!!
>
>>
>>It feels USELESS for me to focus on past abuse that is all mixed up ...
dull
>>and flat at best, and confusingly triggery at worst. It feels USELESS for
me
>>to focus on my profound lack of assertiveness and inability to emote IRL,
>>because I can NOT do it.
>
>usually i'm pretty emotionless - seeming in my posts too, but i'm tired of
>being hurt and i'm tired of seeing my friends hurt. the name of
>the group is 'alt.SUPPORT.dissociation' and what i've seen from
>people here has been less than supportive. it's an atmosphere
>of shaming and judgment on others. and that's not been universal
>at all, it just 'feels' that way.
>
>yes, i've said that we are all at different stages of recovery, but i
>NEVER meant that 'my stage is better or further along' than anyone
>else's! i'm just at a point in my life where these issues are important
>to ME! and to several others - just because some folks aren't wanting
>to deal with that, why are we being put on the defensive and hurt?
>i feel dismissed,
>
Dismissed is a pretty accurate term for it, I would say.
In this microcosm, as in the Real World, those of us who are
on the defensive can merely lock arms and draw strength
from one another.
Ah, she knows that 8). It just feels that way, sometimes, until you
get another feeling to replace that one.
>>
>>My feelings are really confused at the moment, and I'm not trying to blame
>>anyone for them. I understand some of the negative reactions toward the
sex
>>threads; not all of them, but some. But I don't know what else we could
have
>>done but what we did do.
>
>i can't understand that either. i simply can't. i've tried not to
>react in anger or fear. i used to do that on this very group years ago.
>i was always welcome to talk about childhood s*xual abuse, i gave really
>graphic descriptions of what happened to me as a child and teen and
>was given suppport, acceptance, care. yet when i come back to write
>about the *good* things i'm discovering about s*xuality, it's met with
>silence, requests to go elsewhere, judgments. makes no sense to me.
>believe me, i *was* s*xually abused from before i can remember till i
>ran away at 17 years to end up in a loveless marriage. well, i'm in
>my early 40's and i want something more out of life to remember, than
>the abuse. it's just where i am - that lifetime will always be with
>me, but we have a chance - those of us who feel ready - to discuss
>different ways that we have found to try to live well, despite that.
>
>>
>>> take care everyone.
>>>
>>> allison
>>>
>>
>>You're a sweetheart, allison.
>
>am not!! i'm a cranky old lady, with a broken wing,
Actually, you can be both 8).
>who's up
>past her bedtime and feeling angry that you and i and others have been hurt
>needlessly, seems to me. we followed the conventions set forth
>in the faq and still are being told to take it to email - feh!
>
>I think these threads were good for you, no
>>matter what the outcome. I think they added a layer of strength to you. I
>>know I saw a stronger allison emerge from these threads, and I remain
>>impressed. I hope you feel safer again, for all sorts of purposes relating
to
>>healing and to life.
>
>well, i want that for all of us, not just those who participated in
>the threads - all of us.
>
>>
>>Laurie, out of sync
>
>
>(((hugs, Laurie))) very in sync with me - not so sure if that's
>good or not <g>
>
>allison
>
a., traveling in first class company
Mosaics
>
> Sierra wrote:
> >allison wrote:
> >>
> >> i'm tired too - and perhaps will stop reading threads that tell me that
> >> s*x*ality issues have no place on a ng. gee, maybe we all should ask that
> >> those types of posts be spoilered too so that we, *who are also members
> >> of this group, and who also have feelings* don't have to continue to read
> >> about how inappropriate we are!
> >
> >You could ask.
>
> it was a suggestion.
: o)
> >> how unnamed persons are getting 'kicks' out of it, using threads to
> >>'seduce' folks,
> >
> >Ahem...since afaik, I've been the only one to address s*d*ct*on, I'm
> >going to take this as referring to what I've said. I ask that you please
> >reread what I wrote, allison. I addressed a concern and gave advice on
> >IF it were happening. I never said, it WAS happening. Big difference!
>
> well i couldn't rememder who said what. also within the replies as to
> 'getting kicks' and 'being inappropriate', no specific names were ever
> mentioned.
I agree. No names were mentioned nor quotes as to what was being referred
to. I recently made the same mistake with Terra and all it managed to
produce was misunderstanding and hurt feelings and I regret that. It would
help if ppl could try to be more specific, as risk-taking as that may feel.
> i agree - that is the path to paranoia on the parts of those, like me, who feel
> they might have been the person cited but maybe not, so can't really address
> it.
I understand.
> and to the best of my recall - which is faulty - you said that there was likely
> some truth in the validity of the various claims of impropriety, etc - that no
> one was delusional.
I did, but let me take this moment to clarify what I meant. "Kicks" was based
on an observation, stated by Stephanye and supported by others. Ok, it's albeit
a subjective reality as Terra has indicated. Afaik, nearly all subjective realities
are grounded by cues of some sort in the environment (and actually, as I think
of it, I really shouldn't have used just "delusional" as the basis bc this
experience is also spectral in experiences as is dissociation (dissociative
spectrum) and I should have clarified what I meant. In the furthest extreme,
there can be a _complete_ tear from any reality (meaning what's internal - the
subjective reality has _nothing_ to do with the external world or external
cues - delusional in the extreme). When I said that I didn't see "delusional", I
meant the furthest extreme of no external cue; stating that there was too
much cohesion to lead me to this. Hence, the kernel of truth imo, lies
_some_ in the external cue (not all, some), the environment and in this case,
in the threads. This is what I meant by validating the kernel of truth. The cue
may well not have been from any of your posts, allison... still, the cue came
from somewhere and so I ask for validation of it.
Fwiw, no one wants to experience not being heard. I see this happening a lot
lately. I think balance can be struck with enough effort towards validation
from everyone for everyone who chooses to speak about their experiences.
This is my aim. It's honest, sincere and I hope, helpful.
> >> having to clarify and explain our very presence here. clarify exactly how
> >> this all relates to dissociation for folks who haven't even read the sts!
> >
> >There has never been a "having to". Ppl responded bc _they_ felt a need
> >to. No one demanded anyone to speak afaik.
>
> but then if folks don't reply, it leaves that heavy cloud of suspicion
> lying around. and, i admit, i get riled when i see pain caused by
> what i call intolerance. when things are scrupulously posted so as to
> conform to the faq, respected members of the group are involved, why
> are we beibg told to take it elsewhere?
Good question. I proposed a possibility that I thought the numbers of posts on
3 (?) threads was triggering ppl bc even with the splatted titles, it's like the
topics are in ppl's faces constantly and there's no escape versus resorting to
not downloading asd completely. This _can_ be triggering, as well as, what is
below the spoiler. I have no solution to offer. It's simply my thinking.
Might you (and others) consider how this might affect ppl here? If ppl are not
wanting to focus on such that they may be easily triggered by such (even by
splatted titles) that they would feel overwhelmed by the constant exposure in
a group where this is not the designated focus, ie. s*x? If s*x**lity were what
they wanted to focus on, they might travel to a group where this is discussed
and if not, avoid groups that focus on such? With the number of posts on
these threads, it was becoming dominate to the number of other posts on
other subjects and this may be threatening?
Speaking for myself, I was once scrupulously attacked through the claim that I
had gone to an ng designated to the topic of sa and had chased someone off
there, a supposed perp. Not possible bc no one here has ever posted at this
group bc we stay away from such topics and we do so, on purpose. I, we go to
ngs where s*x is not the primary focus. So, I can understand how the repeated
exposure can be overwhelming and trigger even if the actual posts aren't read.
It's like having an issue I prefer not to focus on or have in my awareness,
rubbed in my face when I prefer not to have it be there. AND before anyone
jumps on me here, I own this. This is mine and I'm not saying, don't post
about such. I am saying, "Have a heart. We hurt too and the overwhelming
exposure here may be/is hurting." It doesn't take a lot imo, to be willing to
stand outside of what you and others are getting from these threads for
yourself/ves and say, "I can understand how this is happening for you" or ask
"Is this possibly what is going on for you? If it is, I can understand how
upsetting this is for you." I much prefer this than, "That's your problem, don't
go below the spoiler" bc that misses the point, the experience of others that is
just as valid as yours and other participants (not direct quotes here and not
naming anyone - I'm talking in general).
> it's as if our very presence is unwanted,
: o( It's very wanted imo.
> i'm tired of feeling unwanted, of not fitting in with a group of folks i
> thought i had something in common with.
: o(
> glad the desire to 'fit' here isn't so strong that i can't stand here and say that
> i'm *hurt*. i made myself vulnerable and was judged, namelessly of
> course, as inappropriate - which is a charged issue for me.
I'm saddened that you were hurt by this.
> >I inquired and that's not a crime even if I haven't read the posts. It's not
> >even a judgment or expectation to get a response. I've been trying really
> >hard to communicate on this without passing judgment on anyone. I've
> >asked questions, gave feedback on what ppl actually shared, shared
> >concerns I have, gave my perception and advice if certain things were
> >happening and that is all. As far as I can see, I haven't done anything
> >except engage and attempt to understand and discuss.
>
> i know but sometimes your words seem purposely designed so that you
> can pull back later and say 'i didn't mean that', ymmv. i admit, i;m
> beginning to lose the perpsective woth which i usually try to post. i feel
> shame feelings, such as a kid might, but today i can say 'no! i'm not
> shameful!'
I'm pleased to hear that for today, this is not what you are feeling. I want to
validate that I am purposefully wording my words. I am doing so in an effort
to be inclusive to all ppl concerned. I think everyone has valid concerns,
issues and perceptions and I don't want to leave anyone out of experiencing
validation. Many of the things I am saying is with this in mind. If I am
misunderstood, which is bound to happen; as is my misunderstanding
someone else, I will try to clarify or seek clarification, apologize if necessary.
It's truly not about pulling back for me. I will not, completely invest myself or
my thinking, to either the participants of the threads nor non-participants and
engage in anything that feels to me like "us and them". I will validate
experiences. This is what I feel I am doing. If this looks like I'm riding the
fence so I can pull back anytime, I'm saddened that this feels uncomfortable
for you and others and yes, I am riding the fence. It is what I feel I need to do.
I feel this bc this feels to me, like the most workable place for me to be in an
effort to hear everyone.
> >I fail to see the problem with what I've shared so far. If you'd like to share
> >directly_ with me about what you think I've done that is so awful, bad and
> >judgmental, I'd like to hear it. I much prefer this than you're discussing
> >things I've said in posts that you think I won't be reading it bc of the thread
> >title. And I quote, "heck most folks won't even read this due to the subject
> >header so what the hell?" This isn't at all helpful imo, to the already
> >present discomfort in the group. Behavior like this drops the trust level
> >imo bc it plants paranoia. It certainly has for me.
>
> i really wondered about keeping the subject header, it bothered me that
> Laurie's pain and despair weren't going to be heard by the very people who
> are triggered themselves as they would see the subject and delete it, unread.
Weird. It was bc she changed the subject to title to "support??" that I came to
read. : o) However, I understand with the rest of it still there, ppl may not
venture as I did. : o)
> *i* feel paranid right now,
: o(
> have for several days each time i read yet another post saying how triggered
> someone is, how fed up they are with the topic, how we should take
> it to email - which in my 'paranoid' mind is wanying to hide me
> back in the cellar.
Ouch! I know this is hard. We can struggle to get through this. I'm a strong
believer in "struggle towards unity".
> >> and just how do you begin to do that when the very words trigger them
> >> all to pieces??? Feh!!!
> >
> >Seems to me that ppl so far have been able to share with and without
> >going into intimate detail. I skip the intimate details bc that's where I'm
> >at. I have read those who've managed to share without needing to do so
> >and it's worked! I understood them perfectly. I spose one would have to
> >remember _who_ their audience is and attempt to find a way to
> >communicate with them.
>
> i'm really tired and upset.
: o(
> i usually am quite adept at communication in a somewhat emotion free
> manner. but i'm hurting too, other folks who participated are feeling
> shame and despair over not being understood.
I know. I suspect these feelings are mutual for those non-participants as well.
> we have been doing our best to communicate rationally but it doesn't
> seem to help.
I'm hoping it will get better. What's that saying, "It's always darkest before
the dawn"...sort of goes with my belief of "struggle towards unity".
> i realize that by now it's probably a dead issue anyway.
I hope not.
> those threads are beyond hope now - no amount of cpr is going to
> revive them and the trust and safety level is pretty much gone.
I mentioned to Terra that I didn't think the trust and safety with the ppl she
felt this towards need dissipate bc of this. It may anyway, but I hope not.
What you have is still there imo.
> anyway, i'm leaving for 5 days but will have net access using my dejanews
> account - different name but i'll be sure to let folks know it's me.
Thanks for letting me know. : o)
> i really need this - several days of pampering to allow this broken wrist to
> rest,
Yes! Mucho healing toot sweet I hope!
> my rationality will probably improve tremendously too.
: o)
> Mosaics, i do appreciate your efforts to understand and discuss things
> despite being triggered and fragile by the topics.
Thank you, allison. I'm trying my best to facilitate change, positive change. I
don't want to see ppl going off into quiet places feeling unsafe and this is true
for everyone concerning this. This won't be good for anyone here, no matter
what the subject of posts is henceforth.
> i can only imagine how hard it was to try to read some of them in an effort
> to understand more, i thank you.
Much appreciated. I'm touched, allison. Trying is not always easy but I feel
this is worth it for everyone's sake here.
> take care
Will do. You take care too, allison. Sierra of TN
Caroline
i dont want anyone here to feel bad
no one should feel bad
and i want to say i never wanted to make anyone feel bad,ever
and i also like s*x and never said it was bad
i love it with my husband and it is very special
sure also
we use it as a block to pain alot
,or to express feelings that we dont know how too
we arent all better yet,and dont like to talk about the past outloud
with words
the only point out of all this mix up that we were trying to make was
that we are mpd
and that maybe other mpd's should look at all alters feelings
reguarding any s*xual activities
in our system
it is important to listen to even the littlest voices sometimes to
avoid a big problem later on
thats what i was trying to say
that in the case of mpd and s*x
that there are many ,reactions going on
i dont think or want anyone to feel bad
or not good
or anykinda shame
thats not what this talk from me was about
thats all
love caroline
Grace
Much snippetty doo da here....
Just want to answer one thing that Sierra said...*waves to Allison and Laurie*.....
Sorry about the snipping but running short on time..
>Thank you, allison. I'm trying my best to facilitate change, positive change. I
>don't want to see ppl going off into quiet places feeling unsafe and this is true
>for everyone concerning this. This won't be good for anyone here, no matter
>what the subject of posts is henceforth.
Hi Sierra,
Boy is this ever worrying me.
I feel really threatened by what is happening.
I feel censored and vulnerable.... and what's crazy about all of this, is
that I did not participate in these threads. No.. hang-on, I did post
something just the other day, but it was my only post regarding this matter.
You see, even if I am not up to the point in actively discussing my
problems with s*xuality, I would still very much like the chance to
participate when the time is right. Or even to read the threads on days
that I am feeling a little stronger. I would dearly like the option.
As it is, I am feeling very, very reluctant to *ever* bring up this subject
even under spoilers with adequate splats and so forth. I feel that I would
be harming the group, harming particular members, harming every-one
and I would not chance to do this. I just won't bring it up, I know I won't. :(
As to the answer. I don't have one either. Taking it to email (if I ever
got the guts) is really not as continuous as having this discussion in a
group setting because you get to hear what every-one is saying....
May-be irc.... but then there's the time differences and the lagging.
Other groups... No way!!!!! Never!!! Ever!!!
Why?? Because as other people have pointed out, I feel safe here. People know my history, they know I was abused, they know me...understand the dissociation aspects and the splitting, know the
extreme hardship entailed in regaining some semblence of their own
s*xuality. I just would not feel safe in *any* other group discussing these,
most private things.
So....... What are the people who want to write/read about s*xuality to do?
Are we to remain silent and allow this to fester with-in us? Are we to
speak out and create havic in the group? I don't think that either suggestion would be good for any of us. No na No!!
I open this to some brain-storming. May-be we can call s*xual threads
intimacy threads? Name it something far less triggering and incorporate
it into the FAQ's. I just don't know.
Calling interested parties to submit any-thing, every-thing and may-be
we can work it out together, so as people can still share the s*xual
part of their healing journey, and those who would rather not participate,
not be triggered by reading the headers.
Whaddya reckon?
Grace
Mosaics
>
>Mosaics wrote:
>
> Much snippetty doo da here....
No problem. : o)
> Just want to answer one thing that Sierra said...*waves to Allison and
> Laurie*.....
Ok.
> Sorry about the snipping but running short on time..
: o) I bet that my short is shorter than your short?! *giggling*
> >Thank you, allison. I'm trying my best to facilitate change, positive
> >change. I don't want to see ppl going off into quiet places feeling unsafe
> >and this is true for everyone concerning this. This won't be good for
> >anyone here, no matter what the subject of posts is henceforth.
>
> Hi Sierra,
Hello Grace!
> Boy is this ever worrying me.
Me too. : o(
> I feel really threatened by what is happening.
Same here - group work is hard work!
> I feel censored and vulnerable....
: o(
> and what's crazy about all of this, is that I did not participate in these
> threads.
Me neither and I'm concerned and feeling like I'm walking a very fine
line...eek! Egg shell walking is one of my least favorite attributes!!!
> No.. hang-on, I did post something just the other day, but it was my only
> post regarding this matter.
I read it. Thank you for sharing your thoughts btw.
> You see, even if I am not up to the point in actively discussing my
> problems with s*xuality, I would still very much like the chance to
> participate when the time is right. Or even to read the threads on days
> that I am feeling a little stronger. I would dearly like the option.
Same here. Option is nice to have open. : o)
> As it is, I am feeling very, very reluctant to *ever* bring up this subject
> even under spoilers with adequate splats and so forth. I feel that I would
> be harming the group, harming particular members, harming every-one
> and I would not chance to do this. I just won't bring it up, I know I won't. :(
: o( : o( : o(
> As to the answer. I don't have one either. Taking it to email (if I ever
> got the guts) is really not as continuous as having this discussion in a
> group setting because you get to hear what every-one is saying....
Tis true, email is different.
> May-be irc.... but then there's the time differences and the lagging.
> Other groups... No way!!!!! Never!!! Ever!!!
Irc is challenging. different experience. I like it, sort of, when I'm ok with
immediate (semi-immediate) responses but when I'm in the mood for
contemplation about what others are saying or what I want to say, it isn't so
good.
> Why?? Because as other people have pointed out, I feel safe here. People
> know my history, they know I was abused, they know me...understand the
> dissociation as extreme hardship entailed in regaining some semblence of
> their own s*xuality. I just would not feel safe in *any* other group
> discussing these, most private things.
I can understand that. I had one thought about the newest ng, asarm
(alt.s*x**l.ab*se.recovery.moderated) but don't know if that would work for
those who wish to participate or even if they'd feel comfy there. Now, that
it's moderated, it might be safer bc there aren't trolls/spammers to worry
about - least I hope not. And, that would be saying still "go elsewhere" and
that still doesn't feel ok to me either. *shrug*
> So....... What are the people who want to write/read about s*xuality to do?
Good question. I'm thinking and I'm not even wanting at this time to
participate in them. I'd like to find something or some combo that might
help for all concerned. This can't be it, ie. ppl get upset (pars and non-pars)
and nothing positive as a result from struggling together? : o(
> Are we to remain silent and allow this to fester with-in us?
Not my wish.
> Are we to speak out and create havic in the group?
Speaking up would be my preference! Any ideas out there? Hello?
> I don't think that either suggestion would be good for any of us. No na No!!
I understand.
> I open this to some brain-storming.
Kewl!
> May-be we can call s*xual threads intimacy threads? Name it something far
> less triggering and incorporate it into the FAQ's. I just don't know.
I like this idea or something in likeness ... but would this be clear enough do
you think, esp to newbies? Don't know either. Btw, thank you for validating
by coming up with an idea to change the title; it validates what I was sharing
about ppl feeling triggered by the exposure factor in the titles. I appreciate this
a lot! Thank you, Grace.
> Calling interested parties to submit any-thing, every-thing and may-be
> we can work it out together, so as people can still share the s*xual
> part of their healing journey, and those who would rather not participate,
> not be triggered by reading the headers.
Yes. Any other ideas?
> Whaddya reckon?
I reckon, I got heard (feels nice - smiling) and others got heard, Grace and
maybe, our effort and others effort here won't leave the present bitter taste of
hopelessness that's being felt. Sierra of TN
ave...@hotmail.com
su...@mindspring.com wrote:
>
>
> i dont want anyone here to feel bad
> no one should feel bad
> and i want to say i never wanted to make anyone feel bad,ever
I understand, I believe.
a.
>
> and i also like s*x and never said it was bad
>
> i love it with my husband and it is very special
> sure also
> we use it as a block to pain alot
> ,or to express feelings that we dont know how too
> we arent all better yet,and dont like to talk about the past outloud
> with words
>
> the only point out of all this mix up that we were trying to make was
>
> that we are mpd
> and that maybe other mpd's should look at all alters feelings
> reguarding any s*xual activities
>
> in our system
> it is important to listen to even the littlest voices sometimes to
> avoid a big problem later on
>
> thats what i was trying to say
>
> that in the case of mpd and s*x
> that there are many ,reactions going on
>
> i dont think or want anyone to feel bad
> or not good
> or anykinda shame
> thats not what this talk from me was about
>
> thats all
> love caroline
>
>
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
Grace
>Grace wrote:
>>
>>Mosaics wrote:
>>
>> Much snippetty doo da here....
>
>No problem. : o)
:)
>> Just want to answer one thing that Sierra said...*waves to Allison and
>> Laurie*.....
>
>Ok.
>
>> Sorry about the snipping but running short on time..
>
>: o) I bet that my short is shorter than your short?! *giggling*
haha.... narrrrr... it was just fine....
>> >Thank you, allison. I'm trying my best to facilitate change, positive
>> >change. I don't want to see ppl going off into quiet places feeling unsafe
>> >and this is true for everyone concerning this. This won't be good for
>> >anyone here, no matter what the subject of posts is henceforth.
>>
>> Hi Sierra,
>
>Hello Grace!
Hi *waves* again... :)
>> Boy is this ever worrying me.
>
>Me too. : o(
Yep.... :( And apparently this is worrying other peoples as well... Just
this morning I read a post where a new person is very, frightened and
reluctant to share her stuff that just happens to have s*xual content... :(
This really saddens me... People are apparently becoming scared to
write lest they be spoken to harshly....
Don't want this to happen... don't want this to be so... Hoping like mad
that we can all figure this out so as all parties are more comfortable.
>> I feel really threatened by what is happening.
>
>Same here - group work is hard work!
Yup... I am usually quite silent when difficult situations arise. But this one,
I just felt I needed to speak up..Perhaps I am growing?
>> I feel censored and vulnerable....
>
>: o(
>
>> and what's crazy about all of this, is that I did not participate in these
>> threads.
>
>Me neither and I'm concerned and feeling like I'm walking a very fine
>line...eek! Egg shell walking is one of my least favorite attributes!!!
Understood!
>> No.. hang-on, I did post something just the other day, but it was my only
>> post regarding this matter.
>
>I read it. Thank you for sharing your thoughts btw.
I'm glad I sent it now. Although it was quite scarey for me to do so.
>> You see, even if I am not up to the point in actively discussing my
>> problems with s*xuality, I would still very much like the chance to
>> participate when the time is right. Or even to read the threads on days
>> that I am feeling a little stronger. I would dearly like the option.
>
>Same here. Option is nice to have open. : o)
Oh yeah.... Got to have the option. Otherwise I believe it is censureship.
And people suffer.... Some moderation is needed.. boy... otherwise the
group would not be safe... but in this case, I feel the subject is so important that I am hoping that we can work through this....
>> As it is, I am feeling very, very reluctant to *ever* bring up this subject
>> even under spoilers with adequate splats and so forth. I feel that I would
>> be harming the group, harming particular members, harming every-one
>> and I would not chance to do this. I just won't bring it up, I know I won't. :(
>
>: o( : o( : o(
It is sad hey :( And like I pointed out just before, new peoples are hurting
too... :(
>> As to the answer. I don't have one either. Taking it to email (if I ever
>> got the guts) is really not as continuous as having this discussion in a
>> group setting because you get to hear what every-one is saying....
>
>Tis true, email is different.
Yep... and not safe enough for me either.... I need the group's protection
in order to talk about this stuff... Just how I feel...
>> May-be irc.... but then there's the time differences and the lagging.
>> Other groups... No way!!!!! Never!!! Ever!!!
>
>Irc is challenging. different experience. I like it, sort of, when I'm ok with
>immediate (semi-immediate) responses but when I'm in the mood for
>contemplation about what others are saying or what I want to say, it isn't so
>good.
Still wouldn't feel safe enough even with-out lag and time differences... I
couldn't open up and discuss this stuff in a direct and "free for all" way.
Not yet... May-be not ever, but certainly not yet...
>> Why?? Because as other people have pointed out, I feel safe here. People
>> know my history, they know I was abused, they know me...understand the
>> dissociation as extreme hardship entailed in regaining some semblence of
>> their own s*xuality. I just would not feel safe in *any* other group
>> discussing these, most private things.
>
>I can understand that. I had one thought about the newest ng, asarm
>(alt.s*x**l.ab*se.recovery.moderated) but don't know if that would work for
>those who wish to participate or even if they'd feel comfy there. Now, that
>it's moderated, it might be safer bc there aren't trolls/spammers to worry
>about - least I hope not. And, that would be saying still "go elsewhere" and
>that still doesn't feel ok to me either. *shrug*
No.. :( Doesn't feel right to me either.... I am still having problems down-
loading that group as well... I thought about it for sure... But then feel
really yucky being kicked off my beloved group because I need to
address this issue in my healing.... *sigh* again....
>> So....... What are the people who want to write/read about s*xuality to do?
>
>Good question. I'm thinking and I'm not even wanting at this time to
>participate in them. I'd like to find something or some combo that might
>help for all concerned. This can't be it, ie. ppl get upset (pars and non-pars)
>and nothing positive as a result from struggling together? : o(
Sure.... It isn't good.... I really feel that we can come up with something.
I just know it.... (thinking really positively this morning).
>> Are we to remain silent and allow this to fester with-in us?
>
>Not my wish.
Mine neither... Gosh this aspect doesn't come up all that often for me... and when it's here... I have to catch it by the tail so to speak and allow
all the feelings otherwise I just shove it under the carpet... (very convenient for me, but my other part doesn't feel this way)...
It takes so much courage and energy to deal with this stuff. It is no wonder
why people are triggered... :( So much pain involved... a whole heap of
work.... abreactions... full of danger... but I have to invest my time in
releashing my *shame* about s*x.... otherwise more than just my *own*
life is going to be severly affected...
Tell you the truth Sierra.... I *don't* want to deal with this stuff... stomp!!!!
I would rather just hide from it all and not ever allow *any* of these feelings
or memories to surface.... but I am pushing on... because I can now see,
that with-out this facet of healing, I just won't get better...
That is how it is for me...
>> Are we to speak out and create havic in the group?
>
>Speaking up would be my preference! Any ideas out there? Hello?
Yep!! Hellllllllllllllooooooooooooo (echoing) :)....Please just chuck on
some comment... any-thing.... peoples we need you if you are up to
just chucking on *any* comment or suggestion...
>> I don't think that either suggestion would be good for any of us. No na No!!
>
>I understand.
I knew you would :)
>> I open this to some brain-storming.
>
>Kewl!
Yep... I reckon we can do it with-out hurting each other...
>> May-be we can call s*xual threads intimacy threads? Name it something far
>> less triggering and incorporate it into the FAQ's. I just don't know.
>
>I like this idea or something in likeness ... but would this be clear enough do
>you think, esp to newbies? Don't know either. Btw, thank you for validating
>by coming up with an idea to change the title; it validates what I was sharing
>about ppl feeling triggered by the exposure factor in the titles. I appreciate this
>a lot! Thank you, Grace.
Hey.... you're welcome.... :) As I said in my other post... I *was* triggered...
oh yeah heaps!! But I just knew that if I didn't get in there soon, I was going
to lose something that I hold very dear to my heart.... This is a much deeper issue that I originally thought...
And I completely understand people not wanting to see the threads.....
So....... may-be a new header... I don't know.....
Still thinking... and as for the new peoples.... well I guess if we *all* decided upon a sort of "splat" for want of a better word, for the s*xual
threads, I guess another really short post about s*xual posting is in order.
I know it's laboured and getting complex, but at this point in time, I am not
sure what else to do to protect all of the peoples concerned.
>> Calling interested parties to submit any-thing, every-thing and may-be
>> we can work it out together, so as people can still share the s*xual
>> part of their healing journey, and those who would rather not participate,
>> not be triggered by reading the headers.
>
>Yes. Any other ideas?
Well I got one in email.... but don't feel very good about talking about it
since I haven't got the author's o.k. about sharing it with the group.
>> Whaddya reckon?
>
>I reckon, I got heard (feels nice - smiling) and others got heard, Grace and
>maybe, our effort and others effort here won't leave the present bitter taste of
>hopelessness that's being felt. Sierra of TN
I do so dearly hope so Sierra. I feel that *every-one* belongs here... No
matter if their healing began yesterday or 5 years earlier.... Every-one has
a right to their expressions of healing.... dissociation is such a complex
matter (huh... understated hey??)..... I believe that we can work this out...
I keep saying that because I have seem the undeniable intelligence and
resourcefullness we all have displayed .... just to survive....
Warmth,
Grace
Beauty
Just wanted to make my presence known here, you my companions in sharing,
in recent weeks. And - I hope - in weeks to come, once I get over my
present kind of shaking, aching, sobbing, raw, angry, weary, abreaction.
So much has been said so well here about what hurts about all the nice
"suggestions" being made for us all to take our dirty stuff out of sight.
I have nothing more to add to that, really. I do want to thank all those
who have written that they have read, not read, or whatever, but support
the idea that there should be room for writing frankly and graphically
about - um - *those* - issues.
Yes, what we are doing right here, together on this very thread, is what
we must do for ourselves and each other, which is to continue to offer
support - the real kind. As you say, averti, just the decision to be
here, because one needs and chooses to be here, is a position od positive
import. It's our only positive answer to the situation.
I think lots of people can see and have seen our writing as valiant,
helpful, honest, hopeful, and so on. And some have been inspired to
explore and to share further than ever before. What a triumph! And for
those who see the very existence of our writing as problematic - indeed,
for those who may see physical pleasure as problematic - there is no
answer from within the framework we have chosen for ourselves, which is
one of freedom and self acceptance.
Thanks for writing about the pain in public. It needs to be heard.
Always,
Beauty
> >>I don't know where to move on TO. I've gotten myself stuck in this mode
> where
> >>it's sexuality or flatness. I know there are other issues in my past, but
> >>what I haven't resolved, I'm TIRED of and have been tired of for a long
> time.
> >>Sexuality feels like the one thing that I can explore and maybe turn into
> >>something good, something right. Something right that went so damn wrong
> all
> >>these years.
> >
> >i related so much to things you wrote Laurie - and that was/is a profound
> >gift - i didn't feel quite so alone. as far as moving to somewhere,
> >i'll still be here. maybe some folks would prefer it if i wasn't
> ><shrug> but them's the breaks.
>
> THAT is the necessary epiphany. Now you can do pretty much
> whatever your conscience says to do.
>
> It's pretty simple, really. Nobody is more important than
> you are. Except me. I am more important than anybody
> else. Unless I'm you, in which case you are 8).
>
> >i'm tired too - and perhaps will
> >stop reading threads that tell me that s*xuality issues have no place
> >on a ng. gee, maybe we all should ask that those types of posts
> >be spoilered too so that we, *who are also members of this group, and
> >who also have feelings* don't have to continue to read about how
> >inappropriate we are!
>
> 8). You got it. Or we could request that the quibblers take
> their stuff to email 8).
>
> >how unnamed persons are getting 'kicks' out
> >of it, using threads to 'seduce' folks, having to clarify and explain
> >our very presence here. clarify exactly how this all relates to
> >dissociation for folks who haven't even read the posts! and just how
> >do you begin to do that when the very words trigger them all to
> >pieces??? Feh!!!
> >
> >>
netda...@my-dejanews.com
thought you guys hates us or something. Guess I post from here from now on.>
Grace wrote:
> On Tue, 07 Jul 1998 16:46:24 +0000, Mosaics <mos...@gte.net> wrote:
>
> I open this to some brain-storming. May-be we can call s*xual threads
> intimacy threads? Name it something far less triggering and incorporate
> it into the FAQ's. I just don't know.
>
> Calling interested parties to submit any-thing, every-thing and may-be
> we can work it out together, so as people can still share the s*xual
> part of their healing journey, and those who would rather not participate,
> not be triggered by reading the headers.
>
> Whaddya reckon?
> Grace
Hey there. We have one: Create a private registration-only mailing list for
the topic.
Findmail at www.findmail.com would allow for the creation of just such a list.
http://www.findmail.com/info/makelist_faq.html is the FAQ for how they
operate lists. We could have a private closed list that archives
'invisibly'...only list members could read the Archive.
We don't have a life :> We'll set it up and run it if people want it. We'd
like to see a private/closed -unmoderated- list...no one reading the posts in
advance and approving them. :p
This way gets it off ASD and still lets it happen for the people who want it.
Pretty much you have to -ask- to join, if we set it up the way we said. So no
one will be imposed on. :>
Kennet&
--
-----------------------------------------------
What I do today is important because I am paying a day of my life for it.
What I accomplish must be worthwhile because the price is high.
-----------------------------------------------
{cherish}
Please, please to all those involved in this discussion, I wish you all to
stay with the group and read when you can, post when you can, but above all
take care of yourself and your own safety first.
spoilered for talk of s*xuality threads (nothing graphic)
~
a
~
b
~
c
~
d
~
excellent beginning snipped....
>So....... What are the people who want to write/read about s*xuality to do?
>Are we to remain silent and allow this to fester with-in us? Are we to
>speak out and create havic in the group? I don't think that either
suggestion would be good for any of us. No na No!!
>
>I open this to some brain-storming. May-be we can call s*xual threads
>intimacy threads? Name it something far less triggering and incorporate
>it into the FAQ's. I just don't know.
>
>Calling interested parties to submit any-thing, every-thing and may-be
>we can work it out together, so as people can still share the s*xual
>part of their healing journey, and those who would rather not participate,
>not be triggered by reading the headers.
>
>Whaddya reckon?
>Grace
Grace, I reckon we can do what we've always done. Tell the topic of the
discussion on the first line and spoiler (leaving 10 to 15 lines with some
sort of spacing letter on it)...and then drain those festers away.
Now, I'm speaking from my own little cubicle of the world right now. I have
not read the s*xuality threads lately because I don't have time to give them
the thoughful consideration that they deserve. I also don't want to trigger
myself at this particular time in my life.
I agree with you, though, that I would like the option of going back and
reading them later. I know that I had started a s*xuality thread with
Beauty awhile back and it seemed we both got overwhelmed by real life, and I
never got back to it yet.
It might be well to use a less triggering subject line than "s*xuality",
intimacy threads might do it, or anything else that deals with the topic at
hand, and then mention the word "s*xuality" before the spoiler. If the
splatted words are left out of the subjects, then those who choose *not* to
read them don't have to look at it at all after they've once checked it out
and seen what it was about.
I've been through a *lot* of triggering with this group ( a lot! ) but
thoughtful people like you Grace, and many *many* others have made it okay
for me. And the thoughtless people usually lose interest and we never hear
from them again. When I'm vulnerable I don't read at all.
asdis has given me a lot of impetus to drain the festers in my life and a
place to drain some of them. I feel so free and light, energetic and
enthusiastic with that old baggage gone. I'd not like to see that resource
blocked off from those to come after us.
{cherish}
a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z
Babs Woods
> <I have now found that my ISP does not send my Usenet posts out. And here I
> thought you guys hates us or something. Guess I post from here from now on.>
>
> Grace wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 07 Jul 1998 16:46:24 +0000, Mosaics <mos...@gte.net> wrote:
> >
> > I open this to some brain-storming. May-be we can call s*xual threads
> > intimacy threads? Name it something far less triggering and incorporate
> > it into the FAQ's. I just don't know.
> >
> > Calling interested parties to submit any-thing, every-thing and may-be
> > we can work it out together, so as people can still share the s*xual
> > part of their healing journey, and those who would rather not participate,
> > not be triggered by reading the headers.
> >
> > Whaddya reckon?
> > Grace
>
> Hey there. We have one: Create a private registration-only mailing list for
> the topic..........
Sorry, Kennet, but I VIOLENTLY disagree with anyone's suggestion that these
topics be taken off of asdis. I'm really farking tired of hearing this
garbage. Those who don't like the topics do not have to read them, nor
do they have to tell those involved in reading and posting in those
threads to "take it to [email/off the newsgroup/etc]". I have a right
to see those threads and to feel safe-enough to maybe even post about my own
related issues and I strongly object to this putsch-like effort on the
part of naysayers to shove it under the rug again and silence people on
the subject. The discussion has been being carried out with care and
respect and well within the constraints of the FAQ for this newsgroup.
People have been saying over and over how much being finally able to openly
discuss issues of sexuality, shame, dissociation, and how they have been
related for people and caused difficulties that they are working to
overcome, as well as what they do that has helped them, has been helping
them to heal further. To silence the open discussion of such issues is
to silence the effort to heal.
I had *thought* the goals in asdis were to support each other and to heal
ourselves.
-babs
--
"Excuse me while I dance a little jig of despair."
netda...@my-dejanews.com
ba...@funhouse.com (Babs Woods) wrote:
> In article <6o1fhh$cb6$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, netda...@my-dejanews.com
wrote:
>
> > <I have now found that my ISP does not send my Usenet posts out. And here I
> > thought you guys hates us or something. Guess I post from here from now on.>
> >
> > Grace wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, 07 Jul 1998 16:46:24 +0000, Mosaics <mos...@gte.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > I open this to some brain-storming. May-be we can call s*xual threads
> > > intimacy threads? Name it something far less triggering and incorporate
> > > it into the FAQ's. I just don't know.
> > >
> > > Calling interested parties to submit any-thing, every-thing and may-be
> > > we can work it out together, so as people can still share the s*xual
> > > part of their healing journey, and those who would rather not participate,
> > > not be triggered by reading the headers.
> > >
> > > Whaddya reckon?
> > > Grace
> >
> > Hey there. We have one: Create a private registration-only mailing list for
> > the topic..........
>
> Sorry, Kennet, but I VIOLENTLY disagree with anyone's suggestion that these
> topics be taken off of asdis.
Don't need to apologize to me/us. :) We fundamentally agree with you, but
there is a seriously deep set of big old triggers in us called: "Go-away" and
"Please-others-you-don't-matter". The internal discussion/background noize
looks (sort of) like this ---> <Badbadbad!hurtotherpeople!bad!be-ashamed...>
Used to be, that loop would -automatically- make us run away, so as not to
hurt anyone else with our 'icky' selves. :p We did note it
running/triggering, this time...have caught ourselves before bolting-away
would become imperative.
Ok, BIG question. *I*(Ken&) Was the one people wondered about as a possible
person out for 'kicks'. I kid you not, we know it is the truth. My posted
explanation did not make it off my ISP. Dare I repost it? I note that whoever
of us wrote it absolutely believed it needed a spoiler -inside- another
spoiler. Is it worth the risk it might pose...is the good -saying- that will
surely do me worth the danger to others? We do not know. We hesitate.
Ken&
--
100 character .sig? Aie! Too short.
ave...@hotmail.com
ba...@funhouse.com (Babs Woods) wrote:
> In article <6o1fhh$cb6$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, netda...@my-dejanews.com
wrote:
>
> > <I have now found that my ISP does not send my Usenet posts out. And here I
> > thought you guys hates us or something. Guess I post from here from now on.>
> >
> > Grace wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, 07 Jul 1998 16:46:24 +0000, Mosaics <mos...@gte.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > I open this to some brain-storming. May-be we can call s*xual threads
> > > intimacy threads? Name it something far less triggering and incorporate
> > > it into the FAQ's. I just don't know.
> > >
> > > Calling interested parties to submit any-thing, every-thing and may-be
> > > we can work it out together, so as people can still share the s*xual
> > > part of their healing journey, and those who would rather not participate,
> > > not be triggered by reading the headers.
> > >
> > > Whaddya reckon?
> > > Grace
> >
> > Hey there. We have one: Create a private registration-only mailing list for
> > the topic..........
>
> Sorry, Kennet, but I VIOLENTLY disagree with anyone's suggestion that these
> topics be taken off of asdis.
Figures. You violently _agree_ sometimes 8).
>I'm really farking tired of hearing this
> garbage. Those who don't like the topics do not have to read them, nor
> do they have to tell those involved in reading and posting in those
> threads to "take it to [email/off the newsgroup/etc]".
Seems to me that one of the roots of this problem is that some
people have internalized ''safe space'' as ''space where nobody
ever says or does anything that makes me feel bad.'' Obviously,
THAT level of control is not available to any person in any sort
of group. Moderated, filterated, or ruled with a iron hand.
>I have a right
> to see those threads and to feel safe-enough to maybe even post about my own
> related issues and I strongly object to this putsch-like effort on the
> part of naysayers to shove it under the rug again and silence people on
> the subject. The discussion has been being carried out with care and
> respect and well within the constraints of the FAQ for this newsgroup.
_I_ certainly got that impression. I have personally throttled
down my own self over the months to where I don't hardly
say ''hello'' without ducking under a spoiler.
Speaking of the FAQ, isn't it kind of a working principle that
one person doesn't call another person's story into question--
including the telling person's interpretations? I find
it pretty un-FAQ-compliant to be told that what I thought I
was posting in good faith was ''slime'' designed to generate
''kicks.''
> People have been saying over and over how much being finally able to openly
> discuss issues of sexuality, shame, dissociation, and how they have been
> related for people and caused difficulties that they are working to
> overcome, as well as what they do that has helped them, has been helping
> them to heal further. To silence the open discussion of such issues is
> to silence the effort to heal.
Seems so to me.
>
> I had *thought* the goals in asdis were to support each other and to heal
> ourselves.
>
Heh. Ever look at a tank full of live lobsters? They fight and
strive to get to the ''top'' over the bodies of their fellows.
We're all going to be somebody's dinner ANYWAY, folks, so why
put all this effort into anti-supportive behavior?
> -babs
>
> --
> "Excuse me while I dance a little jig of despair."
>
a.
Babs Woods
> In article <babs-09079...@millan.funhouse.com>,
> ba...@funhouse.com (Babs Woods) wrote:
> > In article <6o1fhh$cb6$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, netda...@my-dejanews.com
> wrote:
> >
> > > <I have now found that my ISP does not send my Usenet posts out. And here
> > > I thought you guys hates us or something. Guess I post from here from
> > > now on.>
> > >
> > > Grace wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Tue, 07 Jul 1998 16:46:24 +0000, Mosaics <mos...@gte.net> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I open this to some brain-storming. May-be we can call s*xual threads
> > > > intimacy threads? Name it something far less triggering and incorporate
> > > > it into the FAQ's. I just don't know.
> > > >
> > > > Calling interested parties to submit any-thing, every-thing and may-be
> > > > we can work it out together, so as people can still share the s*xual
> > > > part of their healing journey, and those who would rather not
> > > > participate, not be triggered by reading the headers.
> > > >
> > > > Whaddya reckon?
> > > > Grace
> > >
> > > Hey there. We have one: Create a private registration-only mailing
> > > list for the topic..........
> >
> > Sorry, Kennet, but I VIOLENTLY disagree with anyone's suggestion that
> > these topics be taken off of asdis.
>
> Figures. You violently _agree_ sometimes 8).
<shrug>
> > I'm really farking tired of hearing this garbage. Those who don't
> > like the topics do not have to read them, nor do they have to
> > tell those involved in reading and posting in those threads to "take
> > it to [email/off the newsgroup/etc]".
>
> Seems to me that one of the roots of this problem is that some
> people have internalized ''safe space'' as ''space where nobody
> ever says or does anything that makes me feel bad.''
We're talking: the vast difference between "safe-enough to venture out"
versus "wrapped in cotton wadding and coddled up on a shelf collecting dust."
And then screaming at others who are free-enough (although it's a huge
struggle for them to accomplish) to go on with their healing, out there
beyond the cotton wadding, sitting down there on big pillows on the floor,
and discussing real issues and using the real words that describe those
issues.
OH!! The *horror*! The incivility!
<ahem>
> Obviously, THAT level of control is not available to any person in
> any sort of group. Moderated, filterated, or ruled with a iron hand.
Exactly. It's one thing to declare, even loudly, "Hey! I don't *like*
that topic!" That's a very important thing to be able to do. What I
object to is that some people feel they then must tell others, "and YOU
can't discuss it anymore!" Ummm. EXCUSE ME??! I don't THINK SO.
If you're not interested in or not ready for a topic, then there's nobody
compelling you to read it anyway. And if you complain about the topic
and you haven't even READ the thread, THAT is censorship. Period. It
is also really rude. I find it invasive, as well.
> > I have a right to see those threads and to feel safe-enough to maybe
> > even post about my own related issues and I strongly object to this
> > putsch-like effort on the part of naysayers to shove it under the
> > rug again and silence people on the subject. The discussion has
> > been being carried out with care and respect and well within the
> > constraints of the FAQ for this newsgroup.
>
> _I_ certainly got that impression. I have personally throttled
> down my own self over the months to where I don't hardly
> say ''hello'' without ducking under a spoiler.
I find splats really annoying and don't use them much anymore. A spoiler
is important, a splat is cotton wadding. (Splatting is most useful on
certain issues the searchbots look for and on religion mostly, as far as
I can see.) The danger for those who are telling people to stop discussing
the sexuality stuff is the backlash they're getting. Because people are
hurting about being told not to discuss this and people are also very
angry at that.
> Speaking of the FAQ, isn't it kind of a working principle that
> one person doesn't call another person's story into question--
Yes it is, and what I'm hearing along with the naysayers' message is
exactly that. It is rude and absurd and insulting to accuse those who
have been discussing the excruciatingly difficult subject matter in these
threads of discussing it "for kicks". It is also manipulative, abusive,
and MEANT to cause shame and MEANT to silence the discussion. What the
naysayers evidently did not bargain for is the anger and rage it also
has engendered. I really have to wonder if the ones most offended are
really offended by the kicks *they* were getting while reading those
posts and if that's not what really has them most upset. Hmmm? I bet
they're not very comfortable with such an accusation. Turnabout is fair
play. (I'm mostly thinking of the canonical naysayers and control freaks
who post to asdis who seem to constantly be trying to control what gets
discussed in asdis, by whom, how, and even when.)
> including the telling person's interpretations?
Exactly. People are talking about what they experienced and what they
felt, and then they're being told to not discuss those things???
Everything I learned about the treatment of trauma points to one thing:
Open, honest, and frank discussion of the experience and the emotions of
that experience in a safe-enough environment is crucial to healing.
Without that, people can get stuck for decades after the experiences end.
Some never get unstuck. Some don't survive at all.
> I find it pretty un-FAQ-compliant to be told that what I thought I
> was posting in good faith was ''slime'' designed to generate ''kicks.''
It's left a lot of people who were both posting and reading the threads
feeling slimed on rather unpleasantly. I think we're all owed a major
apology by those who wanted us to shut up about this set of issues for
the renewed tensions here. (One person has already.)
> > People have been saying over and over how much being finally able to openly
> > discuss issues of sexuality, shame, dissociation, and how they have been
> > related for people and caused difficulties that they are working to
> > overcome, as well as what they do that has helped them, has been helping
> > them to heal further. To silence the open discussion of such issues is
> > to silence the effort to heal.
>
> Seems so to me.
Me too.
Caroline
for saying that
i want to say more under spoiler
for non splatted talk of s.a.
ave...@hotmail.com wrote:
>I understand, I believe.
>
>a.
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
ok thanks for recognizing that i did not want to hurt anyone
i also did not want to shut anyone up
i have been trying to post about sexual alters and pro and con things
for years
i was not trying to stop the discussion and wish it would continue
i was triggered by your finger statement
so
so what
i think it was good i was able to yell about it
doesnt mean i hate you
doesnt mean you hate me
it means its good to get it out
i dont read every single post on these threads
but i really dont understand why people are feeling guilt?
i never said they should
i think that they should not
guilt is not in my or any of our vocabulary
as far as sex goes
remeber from our lack of upbringing for most,and sra for the rest,not
to mention a slut for a mother, we have no taboos or judgements on sex
infact that has been somewhat damaging in our disreguard for some
younger sex alters that have trauma related to some things
also we have zealoustly revictimized them too
our whole reason for entering these threads were to first and foremost
resolve some of these internal wars
and also just mention to anyone else mpd to beaware of certain hazards
that we didnt become aware of till just recently
we were completely split till a few years ago
over the last few years although not completely split with all,there
was still a total lack of reguard between us
in otherwards
someone wants anal sex
they go get it
and you couldnt convince them otherwise
only problem was and still is
they refuse to accept that when they leave
andy and others will get sooo depressed
suicidal
and shut the entire system done into non functioning for days
my new husband[old one played into their demands,and forced switching
to his will]
is trying to protect all
as much as i would like choices and freedom and singularness
this thread has taught me too
its weighing the balances
like if some want certain types of sex there has been comprimises
reached
but in the attempt to negotiate a comprimise
they have to talk
they have to come out and get humanized
the comprimise isnt a silent pact
no they talk to my so
he has patiently listened and seen their side
he has also informed them that they are a they
that they do not live alone
and has told them what happens to the rest of us when they leave
he has explained about andy
and in the haha she knows post
one that does alot of the sex just found out that she is directly
related to andy and that his abuse touches her[that they are one]
freaked her out
look maybe not everybody on this thread are so split
but we are and we have problems with this
we are learning sex doesnt have to hurt
it doesnt have to be alter done
that we can try to stay present
that we can say no if someone doesnt want to
that we will still be loved for saying no
that we wont be forced or hurt for saying no[ex would force]
that it isnt our job and our only purpose
lots of stuff
we arent fixed yet for alotta reasons
they still exhist
and you gotta get threw to them
fear:
fear is such a natural response by accident my husband could do
something that will frighten somebody
then who ever is out will dissociate to someone who is fearless,and
then generally invites more danger
my husband has been patient
and very aware
this is reallly extremely important for other people [male or female]
here[i assume you know this from geode]
to know
if making love to a mpd/did person
the person who isnt [cause it must be hard to do if both are mpd]
has to be pretty observant and vigilant for awhile
alters dont always enter by name
and sometimes they look alot alike
its very subtle differences to the other person
the alter may see him or herself as a certian height,weight
,age,gender whatever
but the other person[your mate] well they still see you all as one
like a child may assume they look age appropriate,having no idea they
look 44
so they assume the husband knows how old they are
well with the lights on and 4 years of practice mistakes are still
made
discovering sex without the usual bossy alters is weird
sometimes i leave on purpose cause it gets too intense
i guess i handle it not great personally
but its not forever body i write more
and tend to be more conservative
but i am not core or host
there is no singular postion held as that anyway
we all used to fight much more
we dont as much now
i havea feeling that the only way to resolve some of their problems
may be with talking about the past[something everyone is opposed too
for the most part]
so i dont know
i would like andy to be at peace and go away
anybody else who is badly hurt
and i would like to free any white slavery like people,and certainly
sra or people that get pschotic
they are not good to have around
learning self control for soem is important
we really need to get everyone to know its their body too,and that
they can not rip it apart
that they are shared organs
its complex
i really do want these threads to continue
i REALLY need them
i need these issues resolved
its particualry good when i can hear that other people struggle with
similar stuff
i feel less hopeless that way
so blah blah
i always go on tooo long
so by
love caroline/also c
lea...@northernnet.com
<new_...@email.msn.com> wrote:
I've been keeping this for a while, got a little done one time, a little more
another time, so it's kind of going to be mixed up I guess.
>Hi! It's averti the gullible kicks-seeking monster. Trying out yet another
>ISP/news provider. Why don't I just close the garage door on my head
>3 or 4 times 8P. It would be cheaper...
Yeah, but I like your head the way it is. I'd hate to see those dimples
marred. =)
Yes. I alternately focus on the "awesome" vs. the "while it lasted."
>>>
>>>But I can't maintain this stuff, and I'm not all that sure why. I don't
>have
>>>a foothold anymore. I feel like I've just been fooling myself, about
>>>everything sexual. And I've been fighting that feeling, because I don't
>>>understand what it even _means_. =(
>>
>>please Laurie, i share your feeling of despair, but i'm going to keep
>>trying. heck most folks won't even read this due to the subject
>>header so what the hell? i care about you Laurie, i appeciate that
>>very sensitivity that is now causing you such pain. please don't give
>>up the searching, the sharing.
>Oh, I really don't think she will. Too much quiet courage.
Quiet courage. I like that thought. I guess courage doesn't have to be all
bold and fiery.
>..sides. I won't ler her give up and she won't let me 8).
Thank you for saying this. I know it's true, but reassurances like this are
always gladly accepted and held closely. Like a reminder that touches and
strengthens.
>>i know that it will take me a long time
>>before i discuss anything here that i feel will leave me vulnerable to
>>attack, but dang it all i have as much right to be here discussing
>>issues that are crucial to my life, as anyone else does. and you
>>know, it's not even direct attacks, it's those 'unnamed' folks in
>>the threads, its the 'kicks' innuendoes, constant admonitions that
>>'safety' of others is not being considered so we've been 'thoughtless'
>>as well. nothing real direct, just the little shaming comments, sort
>>of likw water on a rock - wears you down after awhile.
>>
>It's a shame you have to be exposed to this ongoing bluenose
>squad--but it's not personal, I don't think. Not like it is with me.
>Who knows? If you persevere, you too may upgrade from
>''Don't say that awful thing'' to ''Don't say anything, you
>awful person'' 8).
Hmm. And with neither scenario (indirect criticisms or criticisms based on
personal feelings) is there much possibility of direct communication of what
the actual problem is, person to person.
>>
>>>
>>>I know this is as much about me as it is about anything else. I believe in
>too
>>>damn much sometimes, and I hope too intensely.
>>
>>i just read a letter from someone saying 'gee folks, take it to email'
>>- another one who doesn't understand the importance of the sense of
>>'community' this gave me.
Yes. "take it to email" is like being told it's just not "suitable" or
whatever. To keep it under wraps.
> i was afraid each time i pressed the send
>>button during these threads, yet somehow, someone reached out to
>>me and confirmed that things i said and felt were 'okay'. that is
>>what i'm trying to remember each time i read a post that hurts now.
>>i, too, have a lot of hope that someday i'll wander into another
>>group like we had going. i'm trying to remember the insights that
>>i received, the care, the vulnerability of you and others on these
>>threads and i feel honored to have shared things with you that i don't
>>have too many other places to share.
>>
>Cynic that I am, I now feel that there ain't no such thing as
>a fully respecting group. Any more than there is such a thing
>as the ''safe'' group some people seek. (By whatever subjective
>definition of safe.)
Well, I think that's more realistic than cynical, considering how many
different needs and desires that people have. You CAN'T please all of the
people. Anywhere.
>>>
>>>> today when that happens, i can move on and that's what i will be doing,
>>>
>>>I don't know where to move on TO. I've gotten myself stuck in this mode
>where
>>>it's sexuality or flatness. I know there are other issues in my past, but
>>>what I haven't resolved, I'm TIRED of and have been tired of for a long
>time.
>>>Sexuality feels like the one thing that I can explore and maybe turn into
>>>something good, something right. Something right that went so damn wrong
>all
>>>these years.
>>
>>i related so much to things you wrote Laurie - and that was/is a profound
>>gift - i didn't feel quite so alone.
I know the feeling; I related to you as well. But it's downright _frigtening_
to me how easily and how quickly it can fall apart. And I'm trying very hard
not to come across as pinning all of that on the people who have been
criticizing the sex threads. I know that my reactions come in large part from
within.
> as far as moving to somewhere,
>>i'll still be here. maybe some folks would prefer it if i wasn't
>><shrug> but them's the breaks.
>THAT is the necessary epiphany. Now you can do pretty much
>whatever your conscience says to do.
>It's pretty simple, really. Nobody is more important than
>you are. Except me. I am more important than anybody
>else. Unless I'm you, in which case you are 8).
It's not simple to me. I don't FEEL important alone. I don't even really WANT
to feel important. That's what made these threads feel like something vital.
They felt important because they were not just about me; they were about
something that I shared with others.
>>i'm tired too - and perhaps will
>>stop reading threads that tell me that s*xuality issues have no place
>>on a ng. gee, maybe we all should ask that those types of posts
>>be spoilered too so that we, *who are also members of this group, and
>>who also have feelings* don't have to continue to read about how
>>inappropriate we are!
>8). You got it. Or we could request that the quibblers take
>their stuff to email 8).
I feel like I'm going in circles. Oh, that may have something to do with the
fact that it's 5 a.m. =)
(Well, it was at the time). I crashed and saved this to send today.
>>how unnamed persons are getting 'kicks' out
>>of it, using threads to 'seduce' folks, having to clarify and explain
>>our very presence here. clarify exactly how this all relates to
>>dissociation for folks who haven't even read the posts! and just how
>>do you begin to do that when the very words trigger them all to
>>pieces??? Feh!!!
And when the explanations themselves are often looked at as poorly as the
sexuality posts.
Granted, there has been some middle-of-the-road discussion that hasn't seemed
to have a lot of shaming in it.
>>
>>>
>>>It feels USELESS for me to focus on past abuse that is all mixed up ...
>dull
>>>and flat at best, and confusingly triggery at worst. It feels USELESS for
>me
>>>to focus on my profound lack of assertiveness and inability to emote IRL,
>>>because I can NOT do it.
>>
>>usually i'm pretty emotionless - seeming in my posts too, but i'm tired of
>>being hurt and i'm tired of seeing my friends hurt. the name of
>>the group is 'alt.SUPPORT.dissociation' and what i've seen from
>>people here has been less than supportive. it's an atmosphere
>>of shaming and judgment on others. and that's not been universal
>>at all, it just 'feels' that way.
Right. And I think that feeling can lessen. It has for me.
>>
>>yes, i've said that we are all at different stages of recovery, but i
>>NEVER meant that 'my stage is better or further along' than anyone
>>else's! i'm just at a point in my life where these issues are important
>>to ME! and to several others - just because some folks aren't wanting
>>to deal with that, why are we being put on the defensive and hurt?
>>i feel dismissed,
>>
>Dismissed is a pretty accurate term for it, I would say.
>In this microcosm, as in the Real World, those of us who are
>on the defensive can merely lock arms and draw strength
>from one another.
<Laurie closes her eyes for a moment and cries>
Yes. I don't always know how to do this. But I think I can, now.
It often just plain HURTS to admit that I need. A sort of frightening hurt.
>>>
>>>What feels USEFUL (and good, and right, and promising) is to explore
>>>something that once felt ugly but now feels beautiful. But I just feel it
>>>slipping away. And what's scary is that the more it does, the more I start
>>>feeling this dull feeling that maybe it's just as well. It hurts for my
>>>belief to get this shaky.
>>
>>and Laurie, it *is* beautiful, and ggod. there were too many years
>>where it didn't feel that way, too much abuse, too much broken inside
>>but it's worth the fight - the inner fight to find who *you* are,
>>to flower and grow. its taken way too long for me to get where i am
>>today to let it go, it's prcious to me. s*xuality - that scary word
>>that always has to be splatted and spoilered - is beautiful with the
>>right person and at the right time. its not disgusting, the body
>>and its responses aren't shameful - it's a normal and natural thing
>>and exploring the reasons we are who we are, and why we feel
>>the way we do, allows to begin to love and trust ourselves and our
>>patners more.
>>
Yes, and everyone has their own explorations, their own pace.
Sigh. I'm just sort of going over this one more time, and I keep feeling
still a bit distanced from feelings. I feel like I'm not really responding
well to the emotion in your statements, that I'm not connecting as well as I
did before.
I am on some level, though. It's just that, I guess, I'm sort of distanced
from the waxing-rhapsodic mode I was in before. I loved that feeling. I want
it back.
And I think I'll get it back/
>>>
>>>
>>>> have appreciated those with whom i was able to speak, your openness
>>>> and courage allowed me to be that way also for a bit and i gained some
>new
>>>> insights and understandings of myself, and for that i am grateful.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Me too. While it lasted, this was the closest I've ever felt to being part
>of
>>>a group. Now, I just feel really empty and alone. And I guess in a way, it
>>>feels like a reminder that I just _can't_ belong.
>>
>>you DO belong!!! you are NOT alone!!!
>>
>Ah, she knows that 8). It just feels that way, sometimes, until you
>get another feeling to replace that one.
Heh. yeah, you're both right. Thank you.
It takes SO much for me to feel part of something, anywhere. I often feel I'm
just lucky, or that people are just being nice, or that it's something I have
to be careful not to screw up.
It's not often that I can feel a sense of belonging without also a sense of
"owing" people for being so nice to me. I think that sense stems from a
feeling that I don't know why they would want to have much to do with me.
But in the earlier sexuality threads, I knew. I KNEW.
>>>
>>>My feelings are really confused at the moment, and I'm not trying to blame
>>>anyone for them. I understand some of the negative reactions toward the
>sex
>>>threads; not all of them, but some. But I don't know what else we could
>have
>>>done but what we did do.
>>
>>i can't understand that either. i simply can't. i've tried not to
>>react in anger or fear. i used to do that on this very group years ago.
>>i was always welcome to talk about childhood s*xual abuse, i gave really
>>graphic descriptions of what happened to me as a child and teen and
>>was given suppport, acceptance, care. yet when i come back to write
>>about the *good* things i'm discovering about s*xuality, it's met with
>>silence, requests to go elsewhere, judgments. makes no sense to me.
>>believe me, i *was* s*xually abused from before i can remember till i
>>ran away at 17 years to end up in a loveless marriage. well, i'm in
>>my early 40's and i want something more out of life to remember, than
>>the abuse. it's just where i am - that lifetime will always be with
>>me, but we have a chance - those of us who feel ready - to discuss
>>different ways that we have found to try to live well, despite that.
>>
Yes. We are all products of our experiences, our upbringing and our
feelings/beliefs. The first two things are never going to change. The last
part is where hope for change for the better lies.
>>>
>>>> take care everyone.
>>>>
>>>> allison
>>>>
>>>
>>>You're a sweetheart, allison.
>>
>>am not!! i'm a cranky old lady, with a broken wing,
>Actually, you can be both 8).
What's this old lady business anyway? Old ladies have blue hair and stuff.
Hm, what am I saying? My _daughter_ has blue hair (well streaks of it). =P
>>who's up
>>past her bedtime and feeling angry that you and i and others have been hurt
>>needlessly, seems to me. we followed the conventions set forth
>>in the faq and still are being told to take it to email - feh!
>>
>>I think these threads were good for you, no
>>>matter what the outcome. I think they added a layer of strength to you. I
>>>know I saw a stronger allison emerge from these threads, and I remain
>>>impressed. I hope you feel safer again, for all sorts of purposes relating
>to
>>>healing and to life.
>>
>>well, i want that for all of us, not just those who participated in
>>the threads - all of us.
>>
>>>
>>>Laurie, out of sync
>>
>>
>>(((hugs, Laurie))) very in sync with me - not so sure if that's
>>good or not <g>
>>
Feels good to me. <hugs back> =)
>>allison
>>
>a., traveling in first class company
Laurie, settling into the comfy seat next to averti and glad to be here
Masters Chorus
Greetings Beauty,
Sorry for the delay, but I've been going through much of the same d/t the same cause - *those*
issues being discussed. I hope you decide to stay, as I have always appreciated your POV and input.
Beauty wrote:
> Hello Laurie, Allison, averti, and caroline -
>
> Just wanted to make my presence known here, you my companions in sharing,
> in recent weeks. And - I hope - in weeks to come, once I get over my
> present kind of shaking, aching, sobbing, raw, angry, weary, abreaction.
> So much has been said so well here about what hurts about all the nice
> "suggestions" being made for us all to take our dirty stuff out of sight.
> I have nothing more to add to that, really. I do want to thank all those
> who have written that they have read, not read, or whatever, but support
> the idea that there should be room for writing frankly and graphically
> about - um - *those* - issues.
>
> Yes, what we are doing right here, together on this very thread, is what
> we must do for ourselves and each other, which is to continue to offer
> support - the real kind. As you say, averti, just the decision to be
> here, because one needs and chooses to be here, is a position od positive
> import. It's our only positive answer to the situation.
>
> I think lots of people can see and have seen our writing as valiant,
> helpful, honest, hopeful, and so on. And some have been inspired to
> explore and to share further than ever before. What a triumph! And for
> those who see the very existence of our writing as problematic - indeed,
> for those who may see physical pleasure as problematic - there is no
> answer from within the framework we have chosen for ourselves, which is
> one of freedom and self acceptance.
>
> Thanks for writing about the pain in public. It needs to be heard.
>
> Always,
>
> Beauty
... snipped balance of post ...
Masters Chorus
--
... our belief [is] that the aim of argument
should be to change the nature of ~truth~.
-- The Coda (Bene Gesserit), Chapterhouse Dune, Frank Herbert
lea...@northernnet.com
Mosaics <mos...@gte.net> wrote:
> Spoiler deleted...not necessary....
>
It is now, I think. Nothing major, and everything's splatted.
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
> allison wrote:
> >
> [...]
> > i'm tired too - and perhaps will stop reading threads that tell me that
> > s*x*ality issues have no place on a ng. gee, maybe we all should ask that
> > those types of posts be spoilered too so that we, *who are also members
> > of this group, and who also have feelings* don't have to continue to read
> > about how inappropriate we are!
>
> You could ask.
>
> > how unnamed persons are getting 'kicks' out of it, using threads to
> >'seduce' folks,
>
> Ahem...since afaik, I've been the only one to address s*d*ct*on, I'm going to
> take this as referring to what I've said.
Are you saying that you don't like to be referred to in vague terms? Would you
have preferred it if your comment(s) would have been referred to directly?
Well, the same goes for those of us who have participated in the s*xuality
threads. Part of the sliming feeling is that most of those who are saying
things about what we're talking about aren't referring to specific
discussions or specific people or specific statements, so we have little to
respond to directly. And since a number of people have made dispairaging
comments, and vague comments, it's exhausting to try to comment directly back
to them, because we don't know if the comments are about us, or someone else,
or something else. We aren't being given enough to go by; we don't know WHAT
is triggering people, only that people ARE feeling triggered, in a lot of
cases.
This thread originally discussed my forays into the IRC channel #m*sturbation
and some of the feelings I'd had. Caroline responded to it directly. I
disagreed with a lot of what she said, and some of her comments felt like
judgements against me personally and the things I was embracing. But, you
see, there was something to discuss, because she made direct statements. She
was open and honest, without a hint of a veil. She did not hold back, and I
respect that.
The vague comments that have been tossed around by you and others making
judgements on what people "may" be doing in these threads are difficult to
respond to, because they don't come right out and say anything.
Plus there is a thought in my mind that the only person the "s*d*ctive*
comments would be applied to is averti. I can't see you applying that to the
women in these threads/posts. And I think that it's only natural for him to
feel a little slimed and judged by the suggestion that people "may" be being
s*d*ctive.
> I ask that you please reread what I
> wrote, allison. I addressed a concern and gave advice on IF it were
happening.
> I never said, it WAS happening. Big difference!
>
Um, I don't see why it was necessary to bring it up at ALL. To me, it's like
being concerned that a therapist might be s*d*ctive if one is discussing
s*x*ality with him/her. Granted, people here aren't therapists, but they often
fill a similar role when they reach out to help people, and sometimes they can
be more helpful than a real-life therapist. I was never able to discuss
s*x*ality more than superficially with my therapist.
Again, in these threads, it's largely been the female posters who have shared
their need to discuss s*x*ality. The male poster who has been the most vocal
and the most tuned-in as far as giving people advice on reclamation has been
averti. He has posted replies that have helped a number of people sort out
things in their own heads. A lot of times, it's helpful for a woman to see
these thins from a man's point of view, especially a man who knows and
understands the s*x*al problems that are being discussed.
Whether or not your comment about s*d*ctiveness was directed at averti, I
can't see how he could NOT feel it and be saddened and dismayed that this
would be an automatic concern in discussions of s*x*al reclamation. Those of
us who have spoken with him about sex have given him our trust, and I know he
values that. I also know that s*x*al expression is something he believes in
very strongly, and that it energizes and enthuses him to be part of helping
others to open up and talk about the tough stuff.
I think that for him, it opens up something in him, the ability to talk about
something he knows, on a Narrow but Deep level, and to feel respected for this
stuff rather than feel rejected and mistrusted. And I think that in bits and
pieces, it helps him get in touch more with himself on his own s*x*al issues.
> > having to clarify and explain our very presence here. clarify exactly how
> > this all relates to dissociation for folks who haven't even read the posts!
>
> There has never been a "having to". Ppl responded bc _they_ felt a need to.
> No one demanded anyone to speak afaik. I inquired and that's not a crime
> even if I haven't read the posts. It's not even a judgment or expectation to
get
> a response. I've been trying really hard to communicate on this without
> passing judgment on anyone. I've asked questions, gave feedback on what ppl
> actually shared, shared concerns I have, gave my perception and advice if
> certain things were happening and that is all. As far as I can see, I haven't
> done anything except engage and attempt to understand and discuss. I fail to
> see the problem with what I've shared so far.
I don't see it as particularly helpful that you raise concerns about, for
example, IF s*d*ction is going on, when you don't read the posts in their
entirety. If you're uncomfortable reading the s*x threads, your discomfort is
understandable. But comments about what MAY be happening are not helpful.
You jumped into these threads (or alongside of them) with ideas and questions
for other ideas about how to work out the clashes resulting from the threads.
There was an underlying tone in the things you said that was very wary of
anyting having to do with s*x. Like saying that people should consider who
they're around, and saying that it's important to consider whether the
discussions are related to dissociation.
Why? Why doesn't this apply to other subjects? How about expression of anger
toward one's abusers? This can be triggery to some people, but I've never
once heard anyone tell someone they shouldn't talk about it. S*x seems to be
the only hushed topic in here.
And for most of the people who have talked about it, dissociation probably
figures in pretty strongly.
> If you'd like to share
_directly_
> with me about what you think I've done that is so awful, bad and judgmental,
> I'd like to hear it.
This is what those of us in the s*x threads would like to hear, too, from
people who think that some of what we're discussing is shameful or whatever.
But we don't get much of that. All we get, mostly, are vague implications, so
we don't know WHAT to think, or which of us are supposedly getting kicks or
bragging or whatever. The vague implications tend to cover EVERYONE in the
threads and make us all feel hesistant and uncertain, and wanting to respond
but not having much to respond TO except to post stuff about how we feel
slimed, or whatever.
And then we hear that no one's trying to slime anyone. Which doesn't help,
because we know SOMETHING is going on that is passing judgements on people,
but we have little to address directly.
> I much prefer this than you're discussing things I've
said in
> posts that you think I won't be reading it bc of the thread title. And I
quote,
> "heck most folks won't even read this due to the subject header so what the
> hell?" This isn't at all helpful imo, to the already present discomfort in
the
> group. Behavior like this drops the trust level imo bc it plants paranoia.
It
> certainly has for me.
>
I think it was a legitimate feeling for allison, a frustration/discouragement
that her words maybe wouldn't be read by the very people she wanted to see
them.
> > and just how do you begin to do that when the very words trigger them all
> > to pieces??? Feh!!!
>
> Seems to me that ppl so far have been able to share with and without going
> into intimate detail. I skip the intimate details bc that's where I'm at. I
have
> read those who've managed to share without needing to do so and it's
> worked! I understood them perfectly.
Um, how do you know when the intimate details are coming, or who is likely to
share intimate details or not? I don't really understand what you're saying
here.
> I spose one would have to remember
> _who_ their audience is and attempt to find a way to communicate with
> them. Sierra of TN
>
I know, generally, who my audience is, when I post about s*x*ality. I figure
the "audience" is composed of those who want to read, and perhaps share their
own feelings, about the subject.
For example, I have no idea what the "touch in therapy" posts are about. I am
not a toucher, and I don't get touched by people, although deep down I have
sometimes wished to be a more touching-type person. I admire those who can do
this. But since it's not even remotely part of what is in my life, I haven't
read the posts. Therefore, I would have nothing to comment on if I were to
address the discussion. I would have to go back and read the posts and see
what people have been saying.
Anyway, I'm just saying in this post what I feel, in a vague sense. I don't
have the energy to argue strenuously unless I have something direct and
arguable to go by. I'm not interested in flaming and exchanging bitter words,
but I would like, once in a blue moon, to be able to respond directly and
strongly to words that have been directly and strongly directed toward me,
instead of always feeling that insinuation that _some_ of what I have talked
about is bad or out of place or whatever. That _can't_ mean anything real to
me, because I can't identify or clarify it.
Laurie
--
The wisest person is the person who learns from everyone.
Mosaics
>
> Mosaics wrote:
> > Spoiler deleted...not necessary....
> >
> It is now, I think. Nothing major, and everything's splatted.
I'll leave the spoiler in even though I really don't think it is necessary. Might
be helpful if the warning included more details so ppl could choose more
informed-like.
>
> 10
> 9
> 8
> 7
> 6
> 5
> 4
> 3
> 2
> 1
> 0
>
> > allison wrote:
> > >
> > [...]
> > > i'm tired too - and perhaps will stop reading threads that tell me that
> > > s*x*ality issues have no place on a ng. gee, maybe we all should ask that
> > > those types of posts be spoilered too so that we, *who are also members
> > > of this group, and who also have feelings* don't have to continue to
> > > read about how inappropriate we are!
> >
> > You could ask.
> >
> > > how unnamed persons are getting 'kicks' out of it, using threads to
> > >'seduce' folks,
> >
> > Ahem...since afaik, I've been the only one to address s*d*ct*on, I'm
> > going to take this as referring to what I've said.
>
> Are you saying that you don't like to be referred to in vague terms?
This wasn't true in this instance. I was simply making an abservation that
afaik, I was the only one to use the term, plus allison had shared that she
hadn't kept track of who said what, so I was clarifying.
> Would you have preferred it if your comment(s) would have been referred
> to directly?
Well I can say this, I wasn't in a defensive posture to begin with when I
responded to her post, plus allison didn't appear to be attacking just
expressing imo and I believe, as I mentioned above, that she made mention in
another post (or maybe this one, I can't remember) that she had not kept track
of who said what and therefore couldn't give them. I simply worked with
where and what she was working with and I offered that it was me as best as I
recollect.
> Well, the same goes for those of us who have participated in the s*xuality
> threads. Part of the sliming feeling is that most of those who are saying
> things about what we're talking about aren't referring to specific
> discussions or specific people or specific statements, so we have little to
> respond to directly.
I agree. It would have helped from the onset if ppl had stated, quoted, etc.
> And since a number of people have made dispairaging comments, and
> vague comments, it's exhausting to try to comment directly back to them,
> because we don't know if the comments are about us, or someone else,
> or something else. We aren't being given enough to go by; we don't know
> WHAT is triggering people, only that people ARE feeling triggered, in a lot
> of cases.
I understand completely what you are saying, Laurie.
> This thread originally discussed my forays into the IRC channel
> #m*st*rb*tion and some of the feelings I'd had. Caroline responded to it
> directly. I disagreed with a lot of what she said, and some of her comments
> felt like judgements against me personally and the things I was embracing.
> But, you see, there was something to discuss, because she made direct
> statements. She was open and honest, without a hint of a veil. She did not
> hold back, and I respect that.
: o)
> The vague comments that have been tossed around by you and others
> making judgements on what people "may" be doing in these threads are
> difficult to respond to, because they don't come right out and say anything.
Ok. First I'd like to clarify that I was expressing myself, my own concerns and
my own preferences that if anything like this was occuring, I wouldn't
consider it good for the individuals nor the group. Since I hadn't read the
threads, that doesn't mean imo, that I cannot carry concerns, express what
they are and express what I would like IF they are occuring. If NONE of it
applies, there should be nothing to get upset over imo. I thought I had made
myself clear.
> Plus there is a thought in my mind that the only person the "s*d*ctive*
> comments would be applied to is averti. I can't see you applying that to the
> women in these threads/posts.
Sorry that you think that. It is wholly untrue for me. I'm not a gender-s*xist
bigot when it comes to s*d*ction. This, I know for an absolute certainty!
> And I think that it's only natural for him to feel a little slimed and judged
> by the suggestion that people "may" be being s*d*ctive.
If it is, it truly has nothing to do with me, although I'd be sad if he felt this
way. Like I said, I'm not a gender-s*xist bigot (meaning that "s*d*ction" is the
sole domain of males and the whole hetero thing).
> >I ask that you please reread what I wrote, allison. I addressed a concern
> >and gave advice on IF it were happening. I never said, it WAS happening.
> > Big difference!
>
> Um, I don't see why it was necessary to bring it up at ALL.
Well, you certainly aren't me and can't possibly know what motivated me.
So, I will share with you, as I believe I have already on other posts, that
"kicks" was veiled and non-descriptive and when I think of what "kicks"
might mean, this is what comes up for me and I expressed it in a concern.
> To me, it's like being concerned that a therapist might be s*d*ctive if one
> is discussing s*x*ality with him/her.
Interesting thought.
> Granted, people here aren't therapists,
Nope.
> but they often fill a similar role when they reach out to help people, and
> sometimes they can be more helpful than a real-life therapist. I was never
> able to discuss s*x*ality more than superficially with my therapist.
I see. I understand the similarity you speak of.
> Again, in these threads, it's largely been the female posters who have shared
> their need to discuss s*x*ality. The male poster who has been the most vocal
> and the most tuned-in as far as giving people advice on reclamation has
> been averti. He has posted replies that have helped a number of people sort
> out things in their own heads. A lot of times, it's helpful for a woman to see
> these thins from a man's point of view, especially a man who knows and
> understands the s*x*al problems that are being discussed.
I'll have to take your word for it at this point since I have not read all of the
threads in question. I do believe mick was also responding and he is male (if I
am correct about that - if not, sorry mick and skip the rest of my curiosity), I
find it curious that averti is the only one you see befitting of reference and the
experience of "sliming" if mick, also male, was posting (thinking here in your
thinking abour gender-s*xism inquiry). Just curious and not intended to be
ass*ultive or anything. If mick is a male who was participating, I think it is
notable that you are not including him and since I didn't have any
gender-s*xist thing in mind when I posted my concern or of any particular
posters either.
> Whether or not your comment about s*d*ct*veness was directed at averti, I
> can't see how he could NOT feel it and be saddened and dismayed that this
> would be an automatic concern in discussions of s*x*al reclamation.
Perhaps, this is true. I honestly don't know. I've not been reading late of late
posts concerning this. I've moved onto other things. I will say again, that if
the concern I presented doesn't fit, it doesn't fit and pls don't worry about it.
> Those of us who have spoken with him about s*x have given him our
> trust, and I know he values that. I also know that s*x*al expression is
> something he believes in very strongly, and that it energizes and enthuses
> him to be part of helping others to open up and talk about the tough stuff.
: o)
> I think that for him, it opens up something in him, the ability to talk about
> something he knows, on a Narrow but Deep level, and to feel respected for
> this stuff rather than feel rejected and mistrusted. And I think that in bits
> and pieces, it helps him get in touch more with himself on his own s*x*al
> issues.
I think we are traveling a road I would prefer not to, Laurie. The road of
interpreting and explaining averti. I really do not feel comfortable engaging
in doing so. I consider him quite capable of expressing himself. I don't mean
to be hurtful or shaming, I simply am not willing to travel this with you. For
and about yourself, yes.
> > > having to clarify and explain our very presence here. clarify exactly how
> > > this all relates to dissociation for folks who haven't even read the posts!
> >
> > There has never been a "having to". Ppl responded bc _they_ felt a need
> > to. No one demanded anyone to speak afaik. I inquired and that's not a
> > crime even if I haven't read the posts. It's not even a judgment or
> > expectation to get a response. I've been trying really hard to communicate
> > on this without passing judgment on anyone. I've asked questions, gave
> > feedback on what ppl actually shared, shared concerns I have, gave my
> > perception and advice if certain things were happening and that is all. As
> > far as I can see, I haven't done anything except engage and attempt to
> > understand and discuss. I fail to see the problem with what I've shared so
> > far.
>
> I don't see it as particularly helpful that you raise concerns about, for
> example, IF s*d*ction is going on, when you don't read the posts in their
> entirety.
Ok, you don't see it as helpful. I don't see it as particularly harmful either.
Look, I think my concern is a genuine, legitimate one bc I feel it is. You are
free to disagree with that.
> If you're uncomfortable reading the s*x threads, your discomfort is
> understandable. But comments about what MAY be happening are not
> helpful.
I can understand how you experience this. Can you understand where I was
coming from? I'm not talking logic here bc I highly doubt logic would carry
much weight in understanding where I was coming from. If you really wish
to understand where my concern was coming from, consider emotions and
concern for the safety of the group and you'll have hit d*ad center.
> You jumped into these threads (or alongside of them) with ideas and
> questions for other ideas about how to work out the clashes resulting from
> the threads.
I did.
> There was an underlying tone in the things you said that was very wary of
> anyting having to do with s*x.
That was not my intent.
> Like saying that people should consider who they're around, and saying
> that it's important to consider whether the discussions are related to
> dissociation.
This part, yes. I'll try to illustrate a connection if I can about where I was
coming from. Earlier you said that you were unaware of what ppl were being
triggered by. You said this was true bc ppl were not emphatically saying what
was triggering. I posted a proposal (don't know if you read this), the idea &
personal experience, that the discomfort and triggering was related to the
volume of posts even with splatted titles and that this was/is as triggering to
me and perhaps to others as well. I don't know if you can understand how
wanting to avoid a trigger, yet seeing the words (even w/splats) can be
triggering and may have ~nothing~ to do with going below a spoiler willfully
and get triggered. So, I say that consideration of what this trigger may be
doing for ppl here ("consider who they're around") is valid to me. And imo,
issues that are relevant to dissociation are important here, as are other issues
centered around healing. Very "centered" imo. The posts that I have read
since this whole thing came to a rumble (the newest ones), have centered on
difficulties and healing (I'm speaking about the ones that have been courteous
enough to retitle the threads so that I have a moment to do a check in before
already being triggered).
> Why? Why doesn't this apply to other subjects? How about expression of
> anger toward one's ab*sers? This can be triggery to some people, but I've
> never once heard anyone tell someone they shouldn't talk about it. S*x
> seems to be the only hushed topic in here.
Oh, I have seen other posts that have gotten the 'ol scrutiny and didn't have
to do w/s*x. I hope my explanation above is enough for you bc I truly have
nothing else I can say to shed light on where I was coming from. I am also,
very bogged down by something else going on here in TN's lif/ves, it's very
critical and I have no further energy at the moment for this. Not meaning to
cut you off or anything but if you don't get an immediate response back to
anything you may have to say, this is why.
> And for most of the people who have talked about it, dissociation probably
> figures in pretty strongly.
Ok.
> >If you'd like to share _directly_ with me about what you think I've done
> >that is so awful, bad and judgmental, I'd like to hear it.
>
> This is what those of us in the s*x threads would like to hear, too, from
> people who think that some of what we're discussing is shameful or
> whatever.
I hope they will respond. I, personally, have nothing to offer except my
concerns that I feel are valid, things to consider that if not present then, in
future sort of thing.
> But we don't get much of that. All we get, mostly, are vague implications, so
> we don't know WHAT to think, or which of us are supposedly getting kicks
> or bragging or whatever. The vague implications tend to cover EVERYONE
> in the threads and make us all feel hesistant and uncertain, and wanting to
> respond but not having much to respond TO except to post stuff about how
> we feel slimed, or whatever.
My suggestion would be that you do what you have done here for the most
part....ask. Ask the ppl you feel made comments that they observed "kicks" or
whatever. I was willing to clarify where I was coming from and why, maybe
they will to.
> And then we hear that no one's trying to slime anyone. Which doesn't
> help, because we know SOMETHING is going on that is passing
> judgements on people, but we have little to address directly.
You have my empathy on this. If I should read the threads in its entirety
someday and have something to offer in terms of constructive feedback, I will.
> >I much prefer this than you're discussing things I've said in posts that you
> >think I won't be reading it bc of the thread title. And I quote, "heck most
> >folks won't even read this due to the subject header so what the hell?"
> >This isn't at all helpful imo, to the already present discomfort in the group.
> >Behavior like this drops the trust level imo bc it plants paranoia. It
> >certainly has for me.
>
> I think it was a legitimate feeling for allison, a frustration/discouragement
> that her words maybe wouldn't be read by the very people she wanted to see
> them.
Actually, as I recall, she clarified that she was speaking about your post not
being seen or ppl reading what you had to say bc of the spoiler and the title
remaining the same. I have now, edited it, so maybe ppl will read. Maybe
not, with a spoiler and an opening statement that really doesn't describe imo
~what~ lies below the spoiler; it lacks specifics. I would suggest removing the
spoiler and talking to ppl. I only kept the spoiler here bc you had placed it and
wanted to respect that. I really don't think it is necessary and if you do want
ppl to hear you, it may be best to remove the spoiler and proceed as any
unspoilered post would be, ie. kept readable not triggerable?
> > > and just how do you begin to do that when the very words trigger them
> > > all to pieces??? Feh!!!
> >
> > Seems to me that ppl so far have been able to share with and without
> > going into intimate detail. I skip the intimate details bc that's where I'm
> > at. I have read those who've managed to share without needing to do so
> > and it's worked! I understood them perfectly.
>
> Um, how do you know when the intimate details are coming, or who is
> likely to share intimate details or not? I don't really understand what
> you're saying here.
I was saying that some ppl have managed to share what their participation is
about for them without having to share the intimate details of say, s*x, bd*m,
etc. and it helped me to understand them.
>
> > I spose one would have to remember _who_ their audience is and
> > attempt to find a way to communicate with them. Sierra of TN
>
> I know, generally, who my audience is, when I post about s*x*ality. I figure
> the "audience" is composed of those who want to read, and perhaps share
> their own feelings, about the subject.
True for the most part I think. Not true, if you consider and validate that
splatted titles of trigger words may still be triggering and hence, also your
audience. Something to consider. I don't expect you to accept it.
> For example, I have no idea what the "touch in therapy" posts are about. I
> am not a toucher, and I don't get touched by people, although deep down I
> have sometimes wished to be a more touching-type person. I admire those
> who can do this. But since it's not even remotely part of what is in my life,
> I haven't read the posts. Therefore, I would have nothing to comment on
> if I were to address the discussion. I would have to go back and read the
> posts and see what people have been saying.
Perhaps, this is where we differ concerning these posts. I am triggered even by
splatted words in titles. I don't expect anyone to change what they are doing.
It would be helpful I think if ppl considered it and try to accept, as you would
like acceptance of your needs/wants, about what does trigger ppl (this applies
to other triggers as well). Perhaps, if the word "touch" were a trigger word for
you, you'd understand the experience I (and others) have been having.
> Anyway, I'm just saying in this post what I feel, in a vague sense.
I appreciate that you have expressed yourself. I only ask from you that in the
future, I would rather hear from ppl directly about their experiences rather
than receive interpretations of such from you. What you had to say about
your own experiences (although, I had to replace a lot of "We" to "me/I",
"me/I" meaning you), I got the jist of what is upsetting you.
> I don't have the energy to argue strenuously unless I have something
> direct and arguable to go by. I'm not interested in flaming and exchanging
> bitter words, but I would like, once in a blue moon, to be able to respond
> directly and strongly to words that have been directly and strongly directed
> toward me,
"toward me" bc you were also a poster on the threads, yes? It would have
helped if ppl from the onset had been more specific bc, they may well not
have been about you or any number of other posters on the threads. I don't
know and I can't answer for them. I can only answer for me.
> instead of always feeling that insinuation that _some_ of what I have talked
> about is bad or out of place or whatever. That _can't_ mean anything real to
> me, because I can't identify or clarify it.
I understand, a hanging "insinuation" is no fun and hard to work with. Like I
said, if I ever read the threads and have specific feedback to offer, I will. As it
is, I have my concerns which I shared openly and honestly and without
reference to gender-s*xism nor of specific participants. While, I do have your
attention, I will say that if the s*x**l expressions being discussed weren't being
splatted below a spoiler, it has a probability on word searches to bring ppl here
who are _not_ invested in healing but possibly out for prowling and pickups
and I _really_ wouldn't want to see this happen here. Do you? Hec, I don't
want to see any of these behaviors happen by posters already here nor by
trollers. That is my preference and my concern. Consider my thinking along
the lines of "preventative damage to the group" bc that's really what it's about
for me.
I am glad you are expressing yourself, Laurie. I am very pleased that I wasn't
blasted but asked instead. Thank you. Sierra of TN
lea...@northernnet.com
In article <6ou8a6$d0a$1...@news-1.news.gte.net>,
Mosaics <mos...@gte.net> wrote:
> lea...@northernnet.com wrote:
[...]
> > Plus there is a thought in my mind that the only person the "s*d*ctive*
> > comments would be applied to is averti. I can't see you applying that to the
> > women in these threads/posts.
>
> Sorry that you think that. It is wholly untrue for me. I'm not a
gender-s*xist
> bigot when it comes to s*d*ction. This, I know for an absolute certainty!
>
I wasn't suggesting s*xism in this. I'll clarify below.
> > And I think that it's only natural for him to feel a little slimed and
judged
> > by the suggestion that people "may" be being s*d*ctive.
>
> If it is, it truly has nothing to do with me, although I'd be sad if he felt
this
> way. Like I said, I'm not a gender-s*xist bigot (meaning that "s*d*ction" is
the
> sole domain of males and the whole hetero thing).
>
> > >I ask that you please reread what I wrote, allison. I addressed a concern
> > >and gave advice on IF it were happening. I never said, it WAS happening.
> > > Big difference!
> >
> > Um, I don't see why it was necessary to bring it up at ALL.
>
> Well, you certainly aren't me and can't possibly know what motivated me.
> So, I will share with you, as I believe I have already on other posts, that
> "kicks" was veiled and non-descriptive and when I think of what "kicks"
> might mean, this is what comes up for me and I expressed it in a concern.
>
Yes, "kicks" was a horrible comment.
Again, I wasn't referring to s*xism. I did not include Mick in this because
his posts have been in the needing-help mode, while averti's have been more
in the helping/sharing wisdom mode. No one could have even remotely thought
of Mick's posts as being s*ductive, since they were seeking help rather than
providing help/advice.
> > Whether or not your comment about s*d*ct*veness was directed at averti, I
> > can't see how he could NOT feel it and be saddened and dismayed that this
> > would be an automatic concern in discussions of s*x*al reclamation.
>
> Perhaps, this is true. I honestly don't know. I've not been reading late of
late
> posts concerning this. I've moved onto other things. I will say again, that
if
> the concern I presented doesn't fit, it doesn't fit and pls don't worry about
it.
>
Fine. EXCEPT that it could not help but come across as a judgement. I find NO
reason to even CONSIDER that s*ductiveness might be part of an ongoing
discussion about s*x*al _reclamation_ in a public recovery setting. It's very
d*mning.
I'm not SAYING that you were saying this stuff about averti. I'm just saying
that it's inescapable that he, as a fairly unique participant in the s*xuality
threads (because he was in the discussions primarily in a helping mode), would
feel singled out.
> > Those of us who have spoken with him about s*x have given him our
> > trust, and I know he values that. I also know that s*x*al expression is
> > something he believes in very strongly, and that it energizes and enthuses
2> > him to be part of helping others to open up and talk about the tough
stuff.
>
> : o)
>
> > I think that for him, it opens up something in him, the ability to talk
about
> > something he knows, on a Narrow but Deep level, and to feel respected for
> > this stuff rather than feel rejected and mistrusted. And I think that in
bits
> > and pieces, it helps him get in touch more with himself on his own s*x*al
> > issues.
>
> I think we are traveling a road I would prefer not to, Laurie. The road of
> interpreting and explaining averti. I really do not feel comfortable engaging
> in doing so. I consider him quite capable of expressing himself. I don't
mean
> to be hurtful or shaming, I simply am not willing to travel this with you.
For
> and about yourself, yes.
>
Um, _I_ don't want to travel down the road, again, of being told that I am
interpreting and explaining averti. I will not apologize for being supportive
of my friend and voicing legitimate, reasonable concerns on his behalf. He
has done the same for me on a number of occasions, whether talking to me, or
talking about me to someone else.
You don't have to be comfortable with that; that's your call. But I _can_
speak on his behalf if I choose to do so, and I feel entirely within my right
to do so.
I just wanted to add one other thing, from something you said that I've
already snipped and wish I hadn't. You mentioned a discomfort with the way I
use the word "we" when referring to participants in the s*xuality threads. I
use that word because I _feel_ part of a "we." It's important. A fair number
of people know exactly what I mean, and I can't sufficiently express some of
the stuff that's been going on without using the word "we" to convey some of
the damage that has been done.
I don't mean to single you out; there are a number of people who I feel are
casting or have cast judgements that are unfair. The s*duction thing just
caught my eye, and I felt it was an extremely unwise concern to voice, due to
the already hesitant nature of the threads. No one wants to be even vaguely
labeled as being s*ductive in these discussions, and no one wants to be even
vaguely labeled as being s*duced.
I guess I can add that _I_ for one want the absolute ability to speak freely
(within common grounds of restraint) without having my intentions questioned.
I speak to Mick fairly frankly, for example, about his s*xual difficulties.
It is _important_ to me, and I believe important to him, that he view my
words as honest and without hidden meanings. I care deeply about how he feels
and I would like to help if possible, and I talk with him as frankly as I
can, with gradiations depending on the forum in which we're speaking. I would
feel very bad if he were to question the way I talked to him or view it as a
come-on or something.
Sorry, Mick, if you feel singled out by these comments. I'm maybe going
overboard and over-explaining myself.
Anyway, Sierra, these were just a few points I wanted to make. I respect your
concerns about the feelings of people who are triggered by s*xual stuff; I
just think it's dangerous to wonder aloud about what "might" be going on, or
what "could" conceivably be going on. It's kinda how rumors and stuff get
started.
[...]
Laurie, again probably rambling too much
Mosaics
Ok.
>
> > Mosaics wrote:
> > > Laurie wrote:
>
> > > Plus there is a thought in my mind that the only person the "s*d*ctive*
> > > comments would be applied to is averti. I can't see you applying that to
> > > the women in these threads/posts.
> >
> > Sorry that you think that. It is wholly untrue for me. I'm not a gender -
> > s*xist bigot when it comes to s*d*ction. This, I know for an absolute
> > certainty!
>
> I wasn't suggesting s*xism in this.
When you said, "I can't see you applying that to the women in these
threads/posts.", the "you" and "applying that to women..." it comes across to
me as though you are saying that my term was bc I only think this way about
men and that would be implying me as a gender - s*xist bigot of which, I am
not.
Oh, I thought it important to tell you that I am only visiting asd these days
when I am extremely, extremely calm and my post before and this one, that
my emotional place and tone is calm and not at all, hostile, offensive,
defensive or any such things, ok. I realize that hearing where ppl are at
emotionally is not always easy to do in posts, so I thought I'd share this with
you so you know.
> I'll clarify below.
Ok.
> > > And I think that it's only natural for him to feel a little slimed and
> > > judged by the suggestion that people "may" be being s*d*ctive.
> >
> > If it is, it truly has nothing to do with me, although I'd be sad if he felt
> > this way. Like I said, I'm not a gender - s*xist bigot (meaning that
> > "s*d*ction" is the sole domain of males and the whole hetero thing).
> >
> > > >I ask that you please reread what I wrote, allison. I addressed a
> > > >concern and gave advice on IF it were happening. I never said,
> > > >it WAS happening. Big difference!
> > >
> > > Um, I don't see why it was necessary to bring it up at ALL.
> >
> > Well, you certainly aren't me and can't possibly know what motivated
> > me. So, I will share with you, as I believe I have already on other posts,
> > that "kicks" was veiled and non-descriptive and when I think of what
> > "kicks" might mean, this is what comes up for me and I expressed it in
> > a concern.
> >
> Yes, "kicks" was a horrible comment.
I wouldn't consider it necessarily "horrible" just lacking a supportive
description(s) to give it a well-rounded meaning and reference.
I think I see where we are misunderstanding one another thusfar and it has to
do with remembering and embracing each of our experiences, separately.
You experienced ppl's roles in the threads (mick as "needing-help mode" and
averti as "helping mode") and when you read my concern about "s*d*ction",
you think it is about averti bc of his "role" and he would have such-n-such
reaction to such as a natural course. What I have been saying about my own
experience from the get-go is that I haven't read the threads and since, "kicks"
was not elaborated, this is what comes up for me and these are my concerns
(which btw, "s*d*ction" was only one of them, I had several) and stated that if
any of these were happening, these are my concerns and thoughts about such.
As I can see where you are coming from in your experience and where you are
making the connections between roles and my term, I hope that you can also
understand where I am coming from. I wasn't singling out anyone (how
could I when I hadn't read the threads?), only expressing my concerns based
on what "kicks" means to me. I think where you are possibly missing where I
am coming from is in keeping in mind that I haven't read the threads,
therefore I wasn't speaking about anyone in particular and so, the connection
you see isn't one for me? As relevant, in your experience, that the
"s*d*ction" is about averti and could be no one else, please try to remember
that I hadn't read the threads. As for me, I hadn't fully embraced the
connections you were making til now bc you only now explained ppl's roles
here as you saw them. Now, I understand what connections you are talking
about even if, they were not connections for me when I expressed my
concerns.
> > > Whether or not your comment about s*d*ct*veness was directed at
> > > averti, I can't see how he could NOT feel it and be saddened and
> > > dismayed that this would be an automatic concern in discussions of
> > > s*x*al reclamation.
> >
> > Perhaps, this is true. I honestly don't know. I've not been reading late
> > of late posts concerning this. I've moved onto other things. I will say
> > again, that if the concerns I presented doesn't fit, it doesn't fit and pls
> > don't worry about it.
>
> Fine. EXCEPT that it could not help but come across as a judgement. I find
> NO reason to even CONSIDER that s*ductiveness might be part of an
> ongoing discussion about s*x*al _reclamation_ in a public recovery setting.
> It's very d*mning.
I understand how you could see this given your experience of the threads, ie.
having been in them participating and delineating roles ppl were in. I
suppose you may not be able to fully understand my experience and why I
would express my concerns. And so, it remains unfathomable to you. I know
for myself, that through this whole thing, the one thing I have had to do
_consistently_, in order to understand others despite fundamental differences
in experiences (like your experience of being in the threads and mine as not),
was/has been to ~dispel~, set aside my own experience _long enough_ to
understand yours. In otherwords, while hearing your experience (and others)
to _not_ operate from nor through my own. I think if I did, my own
experience would hinder my ability to fully understand yours (and others).
I think the difficulty you may be having in understanding my experience and
why I would express such concerns is bc you seem to be using your own
experience _to receive_ mine and it's acting like a filter of a sort and thus,
doesn't make sense to you? Does this make any sense to you? (I'm trying to
understand here what may be preventing or blocking your understanding my
experience thusfar - no judgment - just brainstorming). Is it possible that
while you're listening to me, you are using your own experience to
understand mine?
> I'm not SAYING that you were saying this stuff about averti. I'm just saying
> that it's inescapable that he, as a fairly unique participant in the s*xuality
> threads (because he was in the discussions primarily in a helping mode),
> would feel singled out.
I'm glad you aren't saying that I was speaking about him bc I wasn't. This is
reassuring. From your experience, I see where the connection is being made.
> > > Those of us who have spoken with him about s*x have given him our
> > > trust, and I know he values that. I also know that s*x*al expression is
> > > something he believes in very strongly, and that it energizes and
> > > enthuses him to be part of helping others to open up and talk about the
> > > tough stuff.
> >
> > : o)
> >
> > > I think that for him, it opens up something in him, the ability to talk
> > > about something he knows, on a Narrow but Deep level, and to feel
> > > respected for this stuff rather than feel rejected and mistrusted. And I
> > > think that in bits and pieces, it helps him get in touch more with
> > > himself on his own s*x*al issues.
> >
> > I think we are traveling a road I would prefer not to, Laurie. The road
> > of interpreting and explaining averti. I really do not feel comfortable
> > engaging in doing so. I consider him quite capable of expressing himself.
> > I don't mean to be hurtful or shaming, I simply am not willing to travel
> > this with you. For and about yourself, yes.
>
> Um, _I_ don't want to travel down the road, again, of being told that I am
> interpreting and explaining averti.
Is the above not what you have interpreted, surmized and an attempt to
explain this to me? Perhaps, you could share with me what it is if not this? I
know you consider this as support of him. Are you forgetting that you are
speaking to me? That I'm your audience here? That this is likely to come
across as an interpretation and explanation of averti to me?
> I will not apologize for being supportive of my friend and voicing
> legitimate, reasonable concerns on his behalf.
So far, we have been talking about the connections you have made about
averti, the roles in the threads, "s*d*tion", my concerns as invalid and
"sliming", etc. When I read the above, it reads as an extended connection
("rather than feel rejected and mistrusted" - an extended connection to
"s*d*ction/s*d*cing") as though, I am the cause and need to understand how
what I said is connected, etc. and thus, you are explaning to me what you
understand about him, etc. As of now, I will simply accept that these are the
connections you see as valid and leave it at that.
I still believe, quite strongly, that he is fully capable of speaking on his own
behalf about how he is or isn't affected. I'm here and he can and does talk to
me and I prefer to hear what his experience is or isn't, from him and no one
else.
I don't expect an apology and if you consider talking about what you know or
think his process to be as you understand it and feel comfortable doing so, so
be it. Personally speaking, I wouldn't want any of my friends to convey my
process as they understand it to anyone here. It would feel patronizing and
like a subtle message to me that I am incapable of speaking for myself about
my own process and in taking care of myself here with regrads to what ppl
share, no matter how flattering the initial feeling might be, I'd feel patronized
overall. I think the reason I object to this is bc of this. I wouldn't want
someone to do this to nor about me and so, I choose not to engage nor be the
recipient of such.
> He has done the same for me on a number of occasions, whether talking to
> me, or talking about me to someone else.
Ok.
> You don't have to be comfortable with that; that's your call. But I _can_
> speak on his behalf if I choose to do so, and I feel entirely within my right
> to do so.
I would have to say that this is prolly true bc on some level, you have felt that
you've been given permission to do so, implicitly-explicitly or some
combination thereof. Ok. Your relationship is yours/his. When you involve
me in that equation, I object. And yes, I am not comfortable with it.
> I just wanted to add one other thing, from something you said that I've
> already snipped and wish I hadn't. You mentioned a discomfort with the
> way I use the word "we" when referring to participants in the s*xuality
> threads.
Not a "discomfort", hence, no judgment or anything. I just prefer to hear
from you about you and so, I kept mentally replacing.
> I use that word because I _feel_ part of a "we." It's important. A fair number
> of people know exactly what I mean, and I can't sufficiently express some of
> the stuff that's been going on without using the word "we" to convey some
> of the damage that has been done.
If I am understanding your meaning here, you are speaking about "shared
experience", yes?
> I don't mean to single you out; there are a number of people who I feel are
> casting or have cast judgements that are unfair. The s*duction thing just
> caught my eye, and I felt it was an extremely unwise concern to voice, due to
> the already hesitant nature of the threads. No one wants to be even vaguely
> labeled as being s*ductive in these discussions, and no one wants to be even
> vaguely labeled as being s*duced.
I can certainly understand that. I haven't cast judgments on ppl but behaviors
that I would deem unhealthy here. If the behaviors, which I think I described
clearly so ppl would know _what_ I was talking about, are _not_ within how
ppl were behaving, then it doesn't apply and imo, there isn't even a "vaguely
labeled" anything. However, if for a moment, ppl _did_ examine their
behavior in the threads and ask themselves, "Does any of my behavior fit this
description?" and came up with "Nope. Doesn't fit", then I am pleased (as I
would think they would be) that the descriptions and concerns I gave doesn't
apply.
If it did (not saying that it did), but if it did, then I believe that there is
something there for them to think about in light of my concern for them and
the group. A reality-check so to speak (if one has never considered the
concern or idea, perhaps, they hadn't examined their behavior in this light).
Again, I proposed the concerns and gave descriptions of what I was referring
to and why I would think them unhealthy. It is up to each person to _weigh_
for themselves, if the concern validly applies to their behavior. I am
not/wasn't dictating that they examine nor that they are doing such, that is for
each participant to decide on their own imo.
> I guess I can add that _I_ for one want the absolute ability to speak freely
> (within common grounds of restraint) without having my intentions
> questioned.
Same here for the most part. If someone wanted to propose an aspect I had
not considered, as I spoke freely, I would think it good to check it out and
cancel out any possibilities bc in a sense, it would help me clarify further what
I am saying and doing. A reality-check. Sharing concerns hardly equates with
dictating a reality imo. Seems to me that reality seeps in and becomes valid
once, and only once, the person themself says it applies. To me, this is true in
many, if not all, situations.
> I speak to Mick fairly frankly, for example, about his s*xual difficulties.
> It is _important_ to me, and I believe important to him, that he view my
> words as honest and without hidden meanings. I care deeply about how
> he feels and I would like to help if possible, and I talk with him as frankly
> as I can, with gradiations depending on the forum in which we're speaking.
> I would feel very bad if he were to question the way I talked to him or view
> it as a come-on or something.
Ok.
>
> Sorry, Mick, if you feel singled out by these comments. I'm maybe going
> overboard and over-explaining myself.
I got lost there for a second, wondering where you were taking me. I'm still
lost but that's ok. I don't mind. No need for further elaboration.
> Anyway, Sierra, these were just a few points I wanted to make.
I'm glad you made them. In particular, the additional information about
"roles", helped me to understand how the connections were made for you.
> I respect your concerns about the feelings of people who are triggered by
> s*xual stuff;
: o)
> I just think it's dangerous to wonder aloud about what "might" be going
> on, or what "could" conceivably be going on. It's kinda how rumors and
> stuff get started.
Perhaps. I, personally believe that it is far better to air one's concerns out in
the open, for all to see, and if the concerns pan out to be unwarranted...great!
If not, then I'm glad I spoke up.
> Laurie, again probably rambling too much
Oh, I don't know about that. : o) Sierra of TN
mic...@hotmail.com
I'll snip down to...
[Sierra] I do believe mick was also responding and he is
> > > male (if I am correct about that - if not, sorry mick and skip the rest of my
> > > curiosity),
Yes, that's okay Sierra. I had a shower this morning and I'm sure there hasn't
been any major change in gender :)
I find it curious that averti is the only one you see befitting of
> > > reference and the experience of "sliming" if mick, also male, was posting
> > > (thinking here in your thinking abour gender-s*xism inquiry). Just
> > > curious and not intended to be ass*ultive or anything. If mick is a male
> > > who was participating, I think it is notable that you are not including him
> > > and since I didn't have any gender-s*xist thing in mind when I posted my
> > > concern or of any particular posters either.
> >
> > Again, I wasn't referring to s*xism. I did not include Mick in this because
> > his posts have been in the needing-help mode, while averti's have been
> > more in the helping/sharing wisdom mode. No one could have even
> > remotely thought of Mick's posts as being s*ductive, since they were seeking
> > help rather than providing help/advice.
>
> I think I see where we are misunderstanding one another thusfar and it has to
> do with remembering and embracing each of our experiences, separately.
I'll snip here but I think I see what you're saying, Sierra - you couldn't
have been 'aiming' things at anyone if you hadn't read the threads, but since
Laurie saw that the original 'complaints' seemed largely 'aimed' at averti it
would make sense for her to see your comments the same way.
[snip]
[Laurie]
> > I speak to Mick fairly frankly, for example, about his s*xual difficulties.
Yes, you do and I appreciate it.
> > It is _important_ to me, and I believe important to him, that he view my
> > words as honest and without hidden meanings.
And yes, that is important. I have enough trouble with right up-front straight
out clear as crystal meanings about s*x :)
I care deeply about how
> > he feels and I would like to help if possible, and I talk with him as frankly
> > as I can, with gradiations depending on the forum in which we're speaking.
> > I would feel very bad if he were to question the way I talked to him or view
> > it as a come-on or something.
Yes, and this is a good point, thank you Laurie. Same as most people here I
_do_ have a variety of triggery stuff about talking to people about s*x, and
most importantly to women - the gender to whom I am attracted. Without being
able to talk about s*x I don't think I'll be able to feel comfortable or
ready to deal with s*xuality and s*xual relations and basically won't be able
to overcome my dissociation in those situations - and that means I won't let
myself have s*xual relationships at all. I am not happy with that idea for
various reasons but the two main ones are that it breaks my heart to keep
feeling like I'm falling in love only to have it just dribble out of my life
because I'm scared, and because for me to never enjoy some sort of s*xual
expression would be exactly what the man who m*lested me wanted.
I find it _really_ difficult if I even vaguely think that either someone is
attracted to me or feel that I want something s*xual with them. I basically
switch. I find it difficult just when I know the other person is physically
female and we're talking in a friendly way, but I don't necessarily switch -
it takes me a little effort but in asd I've learnt to stay present and write
back to girls/women I just like and who I think like me, and I'm rarely able
to be present like that in RL. So it's getting better, but I have some way to
go. I need to talk to girls/women a bit about s*x (I mean 'talk to girls'
like when young feelings in me sometimes talk to young parts of other asd
people about s*x as a thing in the world, not other s*x stuff). Being able to
discuss this stuff in this way with girls/women when I can trust that there
isn't anything ummm, extraneous going on is _really_ helpful. It helps me to
grow, those young parts of me inside _need_ this, they are trying to catch up
with my adult-age and they need to understand things about s*x in order to do
that - but they need to feel safe as well, so I need to feel like it's
conversation with people they like, not something with deeper s*xual
connotations.
Yeah, I know, I'm in Australia and almost everyone else is in the US and like
honestly is anyone going to make a pass at me anyway - you guys know that's
not really the point, childhood triggers don't operate according to a whole
lot of logic.
I'm not saying, Sierra, that the stuff about s*duction or kicks in this
instance, from you or anyone else, made me more scared. I don't think that's
the case. But I sorta need some trust here, in myself and other people, that
what is happening is fundamentally about healing, that it isn't about
s*xuality so much as about particular aspects of life very relevant to
dissociation for the people who are speaking, errm writing. There is a
tenuous trust in me now, enough to talk more and open up more - but I still
have enough doubts for a whole newsgroup :) and probably then some. I'm
trying to build on the trust that is there though. I don't feel 'suspicious'
or something but I still feel very fragile in being myself s*xually and so my
radar is on red alert and I'm pretty sensitive about it. I guess I'm saying
that when people express things that could give me extra doubts then that can
trigger me back to just not being able to talk at all, it could adversely
effect my progress, it could be bad for me.
I _do_ understand the concerns about these discussions. I certainly
understand expectations for spoilers and splats. I also understand that just
the volume of posts with splatted subjects can be triggery in itself ("Oh
look, my safe place is 70% about sex" is basically how it would feel to me
when feeling very scared, and yes it would make me feel awful). I would like
it if maybe these threads can be kept a little 'quieter' in asd, and I think
all these things can happen comfortably. But they have a place here, within
the appropriate conventions, and it can be detrimental to people's healing to
be suspicious of them.
Ummm, "Be cautious in your caution"? Something like that...
> Ok.
> >
> > Sorry, Mick, if you feel singled out by these comments. I'm maybe going
> > overboard and over-explaining myself.
Well, I didn't mind at all. You thought you went overboard in explaining
yourself? I might have just gone deep-sea diving.
> I got lost there for a second, wondering where you were taking me. I'm still
> lost but that's ok. I don't mind. No need for further elaboration.
>
> > Anyway, Sierra, these were just a few points I wanted to make.
>
> I'm glad you made them. In particular, the additional information about
> "roles", helped me to understand how the connections were made for you.
>
> > I respect your concerns about the feelings of people who are triggered by
> > s*xual stuff;
>
> : o)
Me too. I hope you know that already.
> > I just think it's dangerous to wonder aloud about what "might" be going
> > on, or what "could" conceivably be going on. It's kinda how rumors and
> > stuff get started.
>
> Perhaps. I, personally believe that it is far better to air one's concerns out in
> the open, for all to see, and if the concerns pan out to be unwarranted...great!
> If not, then I'm glad I spoke up.
>
> > Laurie, again probably rambling too much
>
> Oh, I don't know about that. : o) Sierra of TN
Thank you both for talking more about this, like this. I am a big respecter of
mutual respect.
Mick.
--
"Many a mickle makes a muckle".
anon-...@anon.twwells.com
mic...@hotmail.com
lea...@northernnet.com
Mosaics <mos...@gte.net> wrote:
> lea...@northernnet.com wrote:
> >
> > I just wanted to respond to this one part at the moment.
>
> Ok.
> >
> > > Mosaics wrote:
> > > > Laurie wrote:
> >
> > > > Plus there is a thought in my mind that the only person the "s*d*ctive*
> > > > comments would be applied to is averti. I can't see you applying that to
> > > > the women in these threads/posts.
> > >
> > > Sorry that you think that. It is wholly untrue for me. I'm not a gender
-
> > > s*xist bigot when it comes to s*d*ction. This, I know for an absolute
> > > certainty!
> >
> > I wasn't suggesting s*xism in this.
>
> When you said, "I can't see you applying that to the women in these
> threads/posts.", the "you" and "applying that to women..." it comes across to
> me as though you are saying that my term was bc I only think this way about
> men and that would be implying me as a gender - s*xist bigot of which, I am
> not.
>
OK. I should have said "searching participants" or something of that order
instead of "women." I guess I said women because the posters have been
primarily women, with the exception of averti, Mick and Masters Chorus.
Point taken.
> Oh, I thought it important to tell you that I am only visiting asd these days
> when I am extremely, extremely calm and my post before and this one, that
> my emotional place and tone is calm and not at all, hostile, offensive,
> defensive or any such things, ok. I realize that hearing where ppl are at
> emotionally is not always easy to do in posts, so I thought I'd share this
with
> you so you know.
>
Thank you.
If you don't mind, I'm curious: Why visit asdis only when you're calm?
Wouldn't non-calm times be a particularly _good_ time to visit?
> > I'll clarify below.
>
> Ok.
>
> > > > And I think that it's only natural for him to feel a little slimed and
> > > > judged by the suggestion that people "may" be being s*d*ctive.
> > >
> > > If it is, it truly has nothing to do with me, although I'd be sad if he
felt
> > > this way. Like I said, I'm not a gender - s*xist bigot (meaning that
> > > "s*d*ction" is the sole domain of males and the whole hetero thing).
> > >
> > > > >I ask that you please reread what I wrote, allison. I addressed a
> > > > >concern and gave advice on IF it were happening. I never said,
> > > > >it WAS happening. Big difference!
> > > >
> > > > Um, I don't see why it was necessary to bring it up at ALL.
> > >
> > > Well, you certainly aren't me and can't possibly know what motivated
> > > me. So, I will share with you, as I believe I have already on other posts,
> > > that "kicks" was veiled and non-descriptive and when I think of what
> > > "kicks" might mean, this is what comes up for me and I expressed it in
> > > a concern.
> > >
> > Yes, "kicks" was a horrible comment.
>
> I wouldn't consider it necessarily "horrible" just lacking a supportive
> description(s) to give it a well-rounded meaning and reference.
>
It was horrible, with or without a well-rounded meaning. It was offensive to
the extreme.
And if I remember right, it was framed in a "some people seem to be getting
their kicks out of this" manner. <shudder>
The fact that you hadn't read the threads appears to have been detrimental to
what you have posted about them.
> (which btw, "s*d*ction" was only one of them, I had several) and stated that
if
> any of these were happening, these are my concerns and thoughts about such.
>
> As I can see where you are coming from in your experience and where you are
> making the connections between roles and my term, I hope that you can also
> understand where I am coming from. I wasn't singling out anyone (how
> could I when I hadn't read the threads?), only expressing my concerns based
> on what "kicks" means to me. I think where you are possibly missing where I
> am coming from is in keeping in mind that I haven't read the threads,
> therefore I wasn't speaking about anyone in particular and so, the connection
> you see isn't one for me?
As I said below, I didn't necessarily think you were making a comment about
any particular person.
> As relevant, in your experience, that the
> "s*d*ction" is about averti and could be no one else, please try to remember
> that I hadn't read the threads. As for me, I hadn't fully embraced the
> connections you were making til now bc you only now explained ppl's roles
> here as you saw them. Now, I understand what connections you are talking
> about even if, they were not connections for me when I expressed my
> concerns.
>
Fine. Then you perhaps better understand the effects of your stated concerns.
> > > > Whether or not your comment about s*d*ct*veness was directed at
> > > > averti, I can't see how he could NOT feel it and be saddened and
> > > > dismayed that this would be an automatic concern in discussions of
> > > > s*x*al reclamation.
> > >
> > > Perhaps, this is true. I honestly don't know. I've not been reading late
> > > of late posts concerning this. I've moved onto other things. I will say
> > > again, that if the concerns I presented doesn't fit, it doesn't fit and
pls
> > > don't worry about it.
> >
> > Fine. EXCEPT that it could not help but come across as a judgement. I find
> > NO reason to even CONSIDER that s*ductiveness might be part of an
> > ongoing discussion about s*x*al _reclamation_ in a public recovery setting.
> > It's very d*mning.
>
> I understand how you could see this given your experience of the threads, ie.
> having been in them participating and delineating roles ppl were in.
That's all well and good, but what I said has no bearing on whether I was in
the threads or not. "I see no reason to even CONSIDER that s*ductiveness
might be part of an ongoing discussion about s*xual _reclamation_ in a public
recovery setting" is a general statement. The feelings behind it obviously
stem from my participation in the threads and my knowledge of the threads,
but the statement itself stands on its own.
> I
> suppose you may not be able to fully understand my experience and why I
> would express my concerns. And so, it remains unfathomable to you. I know
> for myself, that through this whole thing, the one thing I have had to do
> _consistently_, in order to understand others despite fundamental differences
> in experiences (like your experience of being in the threads and mine as not),
> was/has been to ~dispel~, set aside my own experience _long enough_ to
> understand yours. In otherwords, while hearing your experience (and others)
> to _not_ operate from nor through my own. I think if I did, my own
> experience would hinder my ability to fully understand yours (and others).
>
> I think the difficulty you may be having in understanding my experience and
> why I would express such concerns is bc you seem to be using your own
> experience _to receive_ mine and it's acting like a filter of a sort and thus,
> doesn't make sense to you? Does this make any sense to you? (I'm trying to
> understand here what may be preventing or blocking your understanding my
> experience thusfar - no judgment - just brainstorming). Is it possible that
> while you're listening to me, you are using your own experience to
> understand mine?
>
I do understand yours. You were thinking out loud, mulling over what might be
going on, trying to come up with some ideas to keep peace or whatever. Like
trying to be a bit of a mediator, since you hadn't been involved either in the
the threads or in the objections to the threads.
Most of that is understandable, except that a mediator needs to be familiar
with both sides of a disagreement. Your concerns about trying to effect peace
are fine, but there's not much you can do about it without a full
understanding of the extent of the disagreement and the concerns of both
sides.
The concerns you raised about if s*duction was going on in the threads were
unnecessary and had a logical effect of shaming/blaming. If you had read the
threads, you would not have had a basis for raising such a concern. Since you
did not read the threads, you just tossed it out there (I don't remember you
other concerns) as a possibility, and it was offensive, to various people,
particularly averti.
The fact that you had not read the threads is not a reasonable explanation;
in fact, it weakens your point. You don't have to read the threads. But if
you make comments about them, or raise concerns about them, you own those
comments just as much as you would own them if you had read the threads. And
by not reading them, apparently you feel it gives you the "right" (or
whatever) to make any suggestion that comes to mind about what "if" something
is going on (because you don't know). I don't see it that way. I see the "I
haven't read the threads" comments from you as something to hide behind.
Whether you've read them or not, a suggestion of possible s*ductivness comes
out as a value judgement. The impact is not as great as if you had voiced
_suspicions_, but there is still an impact.
> > I'm not SAYING that you were saying this stuff about averti. I'm just saying
> > that it's inescapable that he, as a fairly unique participant in the
s*xuality
> > threads (because he was in the discussions primarily in a helping mode),
> > would feel singled out.
>
> I'm glad you aren't saying that I was speaking about him bc I wasn't. This is
> reassuring. From your experience, I see where the connection is being made.
>
Good. Because the effect is the effect regardless of my participation and
experience.
> > > > Those of us who have spoken with him about s*x have given him our
> > > > trust, and I know he values that. I also know that s*x*al expression is
> > > > something he believes in very strongly, and that it energizes and
> > > > enthuses him to be part of helping others to open up and talk about the
> > > > tough stuff.
> > >
> > > : o)
> > >
> > > > I think that for him, it opens up something in him, the ability to talk
> > > > about something he knows, on a Narrow but Deep level, and to feel
> > > > respected for this stuff rather than feel rejected and mistrusted. And I
> > > > think that in bits and pieces, it helps him get in touch more with
> > > > himself on his own s*x*al issues.
> > >
> > > I think we are traveling a road I would prefer not to, Laurie. The road
> > > of interpreting and explaining averti. I really do not feel comfortable
> > > engaging in doing so. I consider him quite capable of expressing himself.
> > > I don't mean to be hurtful or shaming, I simply am not willing to travel
> > > this with you. For and about yourself, yes.
> >
> > Um, _I_ don't want to travel down the road, again, of being told that I am
> > interpreting and explaining averti.
>
> Is the above not what you have interpreted, surmized and an attempt to
> explain this to me? Perhaps, you could share with me what it is if not this?
I
> know you consider this as support of him. Are you forgetting that you are
> speaking to me? That I'm your audience here? That this is likely to come
> across as an interpretation and explanation of averti to me?
>
I don't care, Sierra. Your interpretation of my actions does not define those
actions. I can work with you to a point, but I also need to be true to my own
beliefs about what is supportive.
> > I will not apologize for being supportive of my friend and voicing
> > legitimate, reasonable concerns on his behalf.
>
> So far, we have been talking about the connections you have made about
> averti, the roles in the threads, "s*d*tion", my concerns as invalid and
> "sliming", etc.
Oh, don't get me wrong. I don't think your concerns are invalid. I think the
expression and framing of them was misguided, however, in this context. You
may not have thought about how they might feel to the people in the threads
that you had not read, but it doesn't mean they don't have a right to feel
the implication that your "if" statement conveyed.
IIRC, your concerns were both from your own thoughts, and from an attempt to
make the "kicks" comment more understandable. It was a touchy area; it still
IS a touchy area.
> When I read the above, it reads as an extended connection
> ("rather than feel rejected and mistrusted" - an extended connection to
> "s*d*ction/s*d*cing") as though, I am the cause and need to understand how
> what I said is connected, etc. and thus, you are explaning to me what you
> understand about him, etc.
Actually, I'm not saying you are the "cause" of anything. I am saying that
your words had a particular effect, and that it's easy to see how those words
would have that effect. This is logic. I don't have to understand diddly
about averti on a personal level to see why this would affect him; my
understanding of him only serves to help me see how MUCH it affects him.
> As of now, I will simply accept that these are the
> connections you see as valid and leave it at that.
>
> I still believe, quite strongly, that he is fully capable of speaking on his
own
> behalf about how he is or isn't affected. I'm here and he can and does talk
to
> me and I prefer to hear what his experience is or isn't, from him and no one
> else.
>
Yes, he is capable. My speaking on his behalf is my call. I don't consult him
on it, and he doesn't ask me to do it or not to do it.
And he's already spoken on his own behalf, a number of times. Perhaps not
directly to you, so you may not have seen it. (You don't read the s*x threads,
remember?)
> I don't expect an apology and if you consider talking about what you know or
> think his process to be as you understand it and feel comfortable doing so, so
> be it. Personally speaking, I wouldn't want any of my friends to convey my
> process as they understand it to anyone here. It would feel patronizing and
> like a subtle message to me that I am incapable of speaking for myself about
> my own process and in taking care of myself here with regrads to what ppl
> share, no matter how flattering the initial feeling might be, I'd feel
patronized
> overall. I think the reason I object to this is bc of this. I wouldn't want
> someone to do this to nor about me and so, I choose not to engage nor be the
> recipient of such.
>
Well, I don't consider it just "flattering" when someone speaks on my behalf.
I consider it very rewarding when someone else understands what I feel and
helps to frame it for someone else who perhaps is not getting it in the way
I'm saying it. This is groupspeak, and people talk to, about and with other
people, just the way real life works in groups.
I used to be a _really_ weak person, but pretended not to be. It was an
important lesson for me to learn that I _did_ need other people, and that I
couldn't do everything alone. I don't always like everything that other people
say to or about me, but I like that I'm thought of and that I can see that I a
not as forgettable as I always used to view myself as.
> > He has done the same for me on a number of occasions, whether talking to
> > me, or talking about me to someone else.
>
> Ok.
>
> > You don't have to be comfortable with that; that's your call. But I _can_
> > speak on his behalf if I choose to do so, and I feel entirely within my
right
> > to do so.
>
> I would have to say that this is prolly true bc on some level, you have felt
that
> you've been given permission to do so, implicitly-explicitly or some
> combination thereof. Ok.
This is true. Although the "permission" is frosting. I wouldn't speak on his
behalf if he specifically asked me not to, but there is no rule-set, IMO, tha
says there's anything wrong or unusual with doing so, in general.
> Your relationship is yours/his.
Yes.
> When you involve
> me in that equation, I object. And yes, I am not comfortable with it.
>
I can't help that. It's an ordinary part of human interaction.
> > I just wanted to add one other thing, from something you said that I've
> > already snipped and wish I hadn't. You mentioned a discomfort with the
> > way I use the word "we" when referring to participants in the s*xuality
> > threads.
>
> Not a "discomfort", hence, no judgment or anything. I just prefer to hear
> from you about you and so, I kept mentally replacing.
>
Okay, a preference, then. I couldn't remember how you had put it.
> > I use that word because I _feel_ part of a "we." It's important. A fair
number
> > of people know exactly what I mean, and I can't sufficiently express some of
> > the stuff that's been going on without using the word "we" to convey some
> > of the damage that has been done.
>
> If I am understanding your meaning here, you are speaking about "shared
> experience", yes?
>
Yeah, pretty much. See, I felt a bond with several people whose adult s*xual
experiences/attitudes and reclamations were very similar to mine, and a
camaraderie I had never experienced on any level. I think in that, I have a
profound sense of "we."
> > I don't mean to single you out; there are a number of people who I feel are
> > casting or have cast judgements that are unfair. The s*duction thing just
> > caught my eye, and I felt it was an extremely unwise concern to voice, due
to
> > the already hesitant nature of the threads. No one wants to be even vaguely
> > labeled as being s*ductive in these discussions, and no one wants to be even
> > vaguely labeled as being s*duced.
>
> I can certainly understand that. I haven't cast judgments on ppl but
behaviors
> that I would deem unhealthy here. If the behaviors, which I think I described
> clearly so ppl would know _what_ I was talking about, are _not_ within how
> ppl were behaving, then it doesn't apply and imo, there isn't even a "vaguely
> labeled" anything. However, if for a moment, ppl _did_ examine their
> behavior in the threads and ask themselves, "Does any of my behavior fit this
> description?" and came up with "Nope. Doesn't fit", then I am pleased (as I
> would think they would be) that the descriptions and concerns I gave doesn't
> apply.
>
But there was no reason to bring up the concerns in the first place. It cast
the discussions, which were already very scary for some of us, on various
levels, in a negative light.
> If it did (not saying that it did), but if it did, then I believe that there
is
> something there for them to think about in light of my concern for them and
> the group. A reality-check so to speak (if one has never considered the
> concern or idea, perhaps, they hadn't examined their behavior in this light).
Um, we are talking about healing. I fail to understand why we should search
our behavior and discussion to see if there are "s*ductive* elements in it,
when what we had been doing was a healthy exercise in talking about s*xuality
with as little shame as possible. A reality-check such as what you speak is
creepy in light of that.
You have not read the threads. You don't know how precarious these discussions
were, how much they hinged on a sense of safety that was present in them. The
safety is gone, for various reasons. The threads continue, after each round of
discourse (this is what I believe to be the second round), but they've been
altered each time. I don't see too many people, for example, talking about the
beauty of s*x anymore. That seems too scary at this point.
>
> Again, I proposed the concerns and gave descriptions of what I was referring
> to and why I would think them unhealthy. It is up to each person to _weigh_
> for themselves, if the concern validly applies to their behavior. I am
> not/wasn't dictating that they examine nor that they are doing such, that is
for
> each participant to decide on their own imo.
>
Well, I already knew that the concern did not apply to my behavior, nor do
anyone else's in the threads. It was not even anything I expected to even hear
voiced, since it was not even remotely applicable.
The ONLY bit of s*ductive-type stuff I've seen was an email from some I've
never seem post. I read and ignored it.
> > I guess I can add that _I_ for one want the absolute ability to speak freely
> > (within common grounds of restraint) without having my intentions
> > questioned.
>
> Same here for the most part. If someone wanted to propose an aspect I had
> not considered, as I spoke freely, I would think it good to check it out and
> cancel out any possibilities bc in a sense, it would help me clarify further
what
> I am saying and doing. A reality-check. Sharing concerns hardly equates with
> dictating a reality imo. Seems to me that reality seeps in and becomes valid
> once, and only once, the person themself says it applies. To me, this is true
in
> many, if not all, situations.
>
Sure. But if the concerns carry something in with them, the effect of that
something has meaning.
> > I speak to Mick fairly frankly, for example, about his s*xual difficulties.
> > It is _important_ to me, and I believe important to him, that he view my
> > words as honest and without hidden meanings. I care deeply about how
> > he feels and I would like to help if possible, and I talk with him as
frankly
> > as I can, with gradiations depending on the forum in which we're speaking.
> > I would feel very bad if he were to question the way I talked to him or view
> > it as a come-on or something.
>
> Ok.
> >
> > Sorry, Mick, if you feel singled out by these comments. I'm maybe going
> > overboard and over-explaining myself.
>
> I got lost there for a second, wondering where you were taking me. I'm still
> lost but that's ok. I don't mind. No need for further elaboration.
>
Well, I don't know why you were lost, but maybe that sense of being lost
explains why you don't seem to be able to see how harmful the s*duction
wondering might be to someone who is trying to be helpful to someone else
about s*xual matters.
> > Anyway, Sierra, these were just a few points I wanted to make.
>
> I'm glad you made them. In particular, the additional information about
> "roles", helped me to understand how the connections were made for you.
>
Thank you.
> > I respect your concerns about the feelings of people who are triggered by
> > s*xual stuff;
>
> : o)
>
Btw, does anyone else hate it that smileys with the ":" for eyes always end up
looking like quotes in news readers like Free Agent, because ":" is sometimes
used as a thingie for quoting text?
Not that big of a deal, but it just looks weird sometimes. Then again, I
switched to a =) smiley so it bugs me less. =)
> > I just think it's dangerous to wonder aloud about what "might" be going
> > on, or what "could" conceivably be going on. It's kinda how rumors and
> > stuff get started.
>
> Perhaps. I, personally believe that it is far better to air one's concerns
out in
> the open, for all to see, and if the concerns pan out to be
unwarranted...great!
It doesn't appear to be so great, though. Those concerns had an effect whether
you wanted them to or not.
> If not, then I'm glad I spoke up.
>
But you spoke up without having any basis for your concerns. That's a great
deal of my point right there.
> > Laurie, again probably rambling too much
>
> Oh, I don't know about that. : o) Sierra of TN
>
<grin> Then why do half the posts that I make end up to be 8 zillion takes in
deja news after they go a few rounds??? =)
Laurie
averti
>
> lea...@northernnet.com wrote:
[...dropping doooowwwnnnnnn...}
> > Yes, "kicks" was a horrible comment.
>
> I wouldn't consider it necessarily "horrible" just lacking a supportive
> description(s) to give it a well-rounded meaning and reference.
Well, as the soccer ball in this scrum, I have to say that
I didn't find it ''horrible,'' but I found it catty, snide,
and most of all, really insensitive when applied to a
small group of female abuse and r*pe survivors who
THOUGHT they were working their issues.
I don't particularly mind if somebody here suggests that
_I_ myself am doing something for ''kicks;'' I have been
known to be crude, suggestive, derisive, and lots of other
deviant things. (And, since within recent memory I have
in fact been accused--by a small number--of doing everything
from betraying J*sus to sh**ting Lincoln--I'm getting
calloused.)
But, not to belabor the point, it's just not good recovery
group ettiquite to attribute evil motives to other people's
posts. Thus saideth the FAQ, if I recall.
Looks mighty like you are intending to be ingenuous 8).
For one thing, averti and Laurie are extremely close friends,
no? And Laurie is a loyal, emotional type person. I have
NEVER said ''Oh please, go to bat for me in the ng, people
are attacking me.'' But some people feel and act protective
when they think their friend is being treated unfairly.
Numero Two-o: I already have a back history of saying things
here that a few people have found to be offensive along
s*xual lines. Usual suspects and all like that.
Tertially, mick (the male) does NOT have a history of getting
in that kind of contro.
And third and a half, as babs and Laurie have pointed out,
I didn't participate in the s*xual threads to work my own
problems (though parts of them have been coming to the fore.)
But to help. Some people find helping offensive, whether
applied to themselves or others.
>If mick is a male
> > > who was participating, I think it is notable that you are not including him
> > > and since I didn't have any gender-s*xist thing in mind when I posted my
> > > concern or of any particular posters either.
> >
> > Again, I wasn't referring to s*xism. I did not include Mick in this because
> > his posts have been in the needing-help mode, while averti's have been
> > more in the helping/sharing wisdom mode. No one could have even
> > remotely thought of Mick's posts as being s*ductive, since they were seeking
> > help rather than providing help/advice.
>
> I think I see where we are misunderstanding one another thusfar and it has to
> do with remembering and embracing each of our experiences, separately.
>
> You experienced ppl's roles in the threads (mick as "needing-help mode" and
> averti as "helping mode") and when you read my concern about "s*d*ction",
> you think it is about averti bc of his "role" and he would have such-n-such
> reaction to such as a natural course. What I have been saying about my own
> experience from the get-go is that I haven't read the threads and since, "kicks"
> was not elaborated, this is what comes up for me and these are my concerns
> (which btw, "s*d*ction" was only one of them, I had several)
Would you say what the others were? I mean, if your reactions
were based on things other than the content of the threads
(which I still find to be rather strange, like sending
somebody else's meal back to the kitchen because you
imagine that you wouldn't like the way it tastes if you
actually were to taste it), I'd like more info. What
suggested adjustments could we make so that our very
existence in a thread would not remind you of kicks,
slime, and s*d*ction?
>and stated that if
> any of these were happening, these are my concerns and thoughts about such.
>
> As I can see where you are coming from in your experience and where you are
> making the connections between roles and my term, I hope that you can also
> understand where I am coming from. I wasn't singling out anyone (how
> could I when I hadn't read the threads?), only expressing my concerns based
> on what "kicks" means to me. I think where you are possibly missing where I
> am coming from is in keeping in mind that I haven't read the threads,
> therefore I wasn't speaking about anyone in particular and so, the connection
> you see isn't one for me? As relevant, in your experience, that the
> "s*d*ction" is about averti and could be no one else, please try to remember
> that I hadn't read the threads.
Are you trying to tell us that you haven't read the threads? 8)
[...rest is more about the philosophy of cognition, scuse me...}
a.
>
lea...@northernnet.com
Thank you. My focus is primarily on the effects, both direct and ballooning,
of the comments.
> [snip]
>
> [Laurie]
> > > I speak to Mick fairly frankly, for example, about his s*xual
difficulties.
>
> Yes, you do and I appreciate it.
>
Thanks.
> > > It is _important_ to me, and I believe important to him, that he view my
> > > words as honest and without hidden meanings.
>
> And yes, that is important. I have enough trouble with right up-front straight
> out clear as crystal meanings about s*x :)
>
I know. You don't need any more confusion.
> I care deeply about how
> > > he feels and I would like to help if possible, and I talk with him as
frankly
> > > as I can, with gradiations depending on the forum in which we're speaking.
> > > I would feel very bad if he were to question the way I talked to him or
view
> > > it as a come-on or something.
>
> Yes, and this is a good point, thank you Laurie. Same as most people here I
> _do_ have a variety of triggery stuff about talking to people about s*x, and
> most importantly to women - the gender to whom I am attracted.
I know, and I respect and admire you for the steps you're taking in
communication.
> Without being
> able to talk about s*x I don't think I'll be able to feel comfortable or
> ready to deal with s*xuality and s*xual relations and basically won't be able
> to overcome my dissociation in those situations -
Exactly, exactly, exactly. When I was first talking about my "stuff," (r*pe,
abuse) I was referring to euphemisms _constantly_, sometimes making other
people guess what I couldn't say, and then sort of e-nodding. I started
talking in April 1996, and was progressing slowly in discussions with
e-friends (although not in a recovery setting) over the months. But in
September 1996 I hit upon some realizations that made me doubt _everything_
and brought out so much guilt in me over the r*pe (which I was not able to
accept as r*pe until months later) that I sought out "bad" s*x channels on
IRC. R*pesex being my "favorite."
That experience was haunting and traumatic and bewildering, but in retrospect
many good things came out of it. It was not a catharsis in itself, but it
brought _about_ catharcism in several areas. One of them was that it prompted
my very first serious conversation about s*x.
I know I've said this before, but a dear friend spent two straight nights
talking to me on IRC, for many hours each night. One night was about the
#r*pesex obsession/compulsion, and one night was about my
feelings/attitudes/experiences wrt s*x in general.
This was a great gift of friendship to me. He made certain I knew that he was
not, as he put it, "typing with one hand," and that he would not judge anyting
that I said. We talked about so much, and it was like he'd removed a cork from
me and let something out. He had given me a sense of "okayness" about
talking about these things openly. It was safe. I was accepted, I was
understood, and I was respected. And I trusted him.
And we joked, here and there, through the whole thing. That was important.
Little tension reliever things, relaxing things, things that made me grin
through my fears and confusion.
He and I have remained close over the past 2-plus years. He used to feel sad
and angry over the way my s*xuality had been twisted, and he was glad to see
me moving along in healing as time went by. And he was _thrilled_ when it
came to pass that he could talk joyously about s*x and I finally knew what he
was talking about. I never had before; I had just listened sort of dumbly and
felt sort of clueless. But nowadays (although we don't talk as often these
days), we can wax rhapsodic together and practically finish each other's
sentences when we're doing it.
And what is _divine_ in all of this is that there has never been so much as a
_hint_ of serious s*xual innuendo (lots of jokes, but jokes are jokes)
between us. That has been the key. We can even tell each other what we yearn
for, in fairly explit terms, without it feeling like there's something going
on s*xually between us. He can even tell me he's, um, "aroused" by the
talking, and I know that that arousal is because of the talking, not because
of who he's talking to. That is _priceless_ to me.
> and that means I won't let
> myself have s*xual relationships at all. I am not happy with that idea for
> various reasons but the two main ones are that it breaks my heart to keep
> feeling like I'm falling in love only to have it just dribble out of my life
> because I'm scared, and because for me to never enjoy some sort of s*xual
> expression would be exactly what the man who m*lested me wanted.
>
How often does the phrase "it's not fair" cross your mind, Mick? =(
> I find it _really_ difficult if I even vaguely think that either someone is
> attracted to me or feel that I want something s*xual with them. I basically
> switch. I find it difficult just when I know the other person is physically
> female and we're talking in a friendly way, but I don't necessarily switch -
> it takes me a little effort but in asd I've learnt to stay present and write
> back to girls/women I just like and who I think like me, and I'm rarely able
> to be present like that in RL. So it's getting better, but I have some way to
> go. I need to talk to girls/women a bit about s*x (I mean 'talk to girls'
> like when young feelings in me sometimes talk to young parts of other asd
> people about s*x as a thing in the world, not other s*x stuff). Being able to
> discuss this stuff in this way with girls/women when I can trust that there
> isn't anything ummm, extraneous going on is _really_ helpful. It helps me to
> grow, those young parts of me inside _need_ this, they are trying to catch up
> with my adult-age and they need to understand things about s*x in order to do
> that - but they need to feel safe as well, so I need to feel like it's
> conversation with people they like, not something with deeper s*xual
> connotations.
>
Understood, all of this.
I am _very_ wary of s*xual connotation that crops up in discussions.
Sometimes the frank way I talk (not here, but in other forums) sometimes
gives people the impression that I might be interested in something s*xual.
This dismays and, frankly, frightens me.
I mean, I am a channel operator on an irc channel called #m*sturbation, and I
do _nothing_ s*xual on that channel. _Only_ talk (mostly about s*x, but not
just about s*x). It's a _huge_ comfort to me that the other regulars
understand this and like me anyway.
> Yeah, I know, I'm in Australia and almost everyone else is in the US and like
> honestly is anyone going to make a pass at me anyway - you guys know that's
> not really the point, childhood triggers don't operate according to a whole
> lot of logic.
>
Emotions and intellect make strange bedfellows. Sometimes.
Say, if you see a guy named Mike Funnell anywhere around Australia, will you
tell him he'd better email me??? <grin>
> I'm not saying, Sierra, that the stuff about s*duction or kicks in this
> instance, from you or anyone else, made me more scared. I don't think that's
> the case. But I sorta need some trust here, in myself and other people, that
> what is happening is fundamentally about healing, that it isn't about
> s*xuality so much as about particular aspects of life very relevant to
> dissociation for the people who are speaking, errm writing. There is a
> tenuous trust in me now, enough to talk more and open up more - but I still
> have enough doubts for a whole newsgroup :) and probably then some. I'm
> trying to build on the trust that is there though. I don't feel 'suspicious'
> or something but I still feel very fragile in being myself s*xually and so my
> radar is on red alert and I'm pretty sensitive about it. I guess I'm saying
> that when people express things that could give me extra doubts then that can
> trigger me back to just not being able to talk at all, it could adversely
> effect my progress, it could be bad for me.
>
Understood. I know you need a sense of safety.
> I _do_ understand the concerns about these discussions. I certainly
> understand expectations for spoilers and splats. I also understand that just
> the volume of posts with splatted subjects can be triggery in itself ("Oh
> look, my safe place is 70% about sex" is basically how it would feel to me
> when feeling very scared, and yes it would make me feel awful). I would like
> it if maybe these threads can be kept a little 'quieter' in asd,
Well, they are now. But I don't think they were ever all that loud.
I guess the thought of keeping them "quieter" sort of just creeps me out. I
was "quiet" as a mouse about ALL of it for years and years, because I knew no
other way. I dunno, just seeing the _word_ "quieter" just makes me feel a
sense of withdrawal and makes me remember what a _ghost_ I was s*xually, and
in what low regard I held my own feelings.
> and I think
> all these things can happen comfortably. But they have a place here, within
> the appropriate conventions, and it can be detrimental to people's healing to
> be suspicious of them.
>
Yes.
> Ummm, "Be cautious in your caution"? Something like that...
>
> > Ok.
> > >
> > > Sorry, Mick, if you feel singled out by these comments. I'm maybe going
> > > overboard and over-explaining myself.
>
> Well, I didn't mind at all. You thought you went overboard in explaining
> yourself? I might have just gone deep-sea diving.
>
Good analogy. I hope you find a lot of buried treasure, Mick. I mean it.
> > I got lost there for a second, wondering where you were taking me. I'm
still
> > lost but that's ok. I don't mind. No need for further elaboration.
> >
> > > Anyway, Sierra, these were just a few points I wanted to make.
> >
> > I'm glad you made them. In particular, the additional information about
> > "roles", helped me to understand how the connections were made for you.
> >
> > > I respect your concerns about the feelings of people who are triggered by
> > > s*xual stuff;
> >
> > : o)
>
> Me too. I hope you know that already.
>
> > > I just think it's dangerous to wonder aloud about what "might" be going
> > > on, or what "could" conceivably be going on. It's kinda how rumors and
> > > stuff get started.
> >
> > Perhaps. I, personally believe that it is far better to air one's concerns
out in
> > the open, for all to see, and if the concerns pan out to be
unwarranted...great!
> > If not, then I'm glad I spoke up.
> >
> > > Laurie, again probably rambling too much
> >
> > Oh, I don't know about that. : o) Sierra of TN
>
> Thank you both for talking more about this, like this. I am a big respecter of
> mutual respect.
>
> Mick.
>
Thank you, Mick, for your own explorations, as odd as that might sound. I
don't know how to explain how rewarding it is to see you do this. I think the
more I see it, from you and others, the more I see hope live. And hope
thrills me, always.
Laurie
> --
> "Many a mickle makes a muckle".
> anon-...@anon.twwells.com
> mic...@hotmail.com
>
> -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
> http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
>
--
The wisest person is the person who learns from everyone.
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
Mosaics
I read your response in full and I honestly don't believe at this point in time, I
can place any more time into this; not a stitch beyond this post now. If you
knew what was going on here in TribalNation, I am sure you would fully
understand my withdrawal at this time. I guess you'll have to take me at my
word that the reason is valid, serious and warranted. If not, there's nothing I
am willing to do about this.
I don't believe you can and maybe, it's bc you're unwilling to understand
where I was coming from and why; I don't know and I'm tapped for resources
in how to get through to you. As much as I seem to be able to understand and
accept your experience and validate it, I feel little reciprocation on your part
and that I am expected to simply validate yours while mine has no value, no
logic, no place here or anywhere. This may not be what you're intending to
have me experience and I experience it just the same. This saddens me
tremendously bc I've tried; I've tried real hard. I have no other way to
explain my actions, concerns, etc so that you can. Perhaps, at some other
point in time, I may try again.
For whatever perceived or real harm felt by ppl bc of my expressed concerns, I
am saddened that you felt hurt and I apologize for the hurt felt. It wasn't my
intention to hurt anyone ever. I won't apologize for what felt to me,
legitimate concerns based on my own thinking at the time and follow
through with such. I won't apologize, no matter how much anyone (you,
Laurie) argue contentions for how and why I had no basis, no grounds, etc. I
am entitled to my experience, to my felt concerns for the group, to share them
and I did. For that, I will never apologize bc I'm inherently entitled to express
myself. Did I ever act with the intention to harm or to insinuate that my
concerns ~were~ happening? No.
As for mediation...I used what I was observing in ppl's responses over this
and for me, that was enough. "What" ppl were saying to one another is
important; what I focused on was "how" ppl were communicating - and
again, based on my own observations of which, I owned as mine and offered
suggestions, offered to ppl that they were free to toss if ppl felt no value in it,
as was the case with my concerns. After examining myself in what you had to
say concerning this and my concerns, I honestly see nothing wrong in what I
attempted to achieve. If it landed within ppl in such a way as to harm them,
again it wasn't my intention to harm you and I am saddened that this
happened and apologize for the hurt caused. Perhaps, it would be best Laurie
that we should simply leave it at "We agree to disagree." Sierra of TN
averti
>
> Laurie,
>
> I read your response in full and I honestly don't believe at this point in time, I
> can place any more time into this; not a stitch beyond this post now.
The following sentence, to me, sums it all up.
>If you
> knew what was going on here in TribalNation, I am sure you would fully
> understand my withdrawal at this time. I guess you'll have to take me at my
> word that the reason is valid, serious and warranted. If not, there's nothing I
> am willing to do about this.
I dunno about Laurie, but I feel that I know a dismissal when
_I_ see one aimed at me.
Neat thing about being dismissed is that it licenses one to
stop making allowances for the ''other side.''
>
> I don't believe you can and maybe, it's bc you're unwilling to understand
> where I was coming from and why; I don't know and I'm tapped for resources
> in how to get through to you. As much as I seem to be able to understand and
> accept your experience and validate it, I feel little reciprocation on your part
> and that I am expected to simply validate yours while mine has no value, no
> logic, no place here or anywhere.
Nobody ever said that. Nobody in the external world, anyway.
>This may not be what you're intending to
> have me experience and I experience it just the same. This saddens me
> tremendously bc I've tried; I've tried real hard. I have no other way to
> explain my actions, concerns, etc so that you can. Perhaps, at some other
> point in time, I may try again.
For my part I think I understand enough to get by. My position is that
when you suggest that somebody is up to no good, the implied
rules of interaction say that you explain where you are coming
from, or stop making such suggestions. It's not reasonable to
expect that if you narrate your story over and over again, that
people will suddenly ''get it'' like a flash of understanding.
>
> For whatever perceived or real harm felt by ppl bc of my expressed concerns, I
> am saddened that you felt hurt and I apologize for the hurt felt. It wasn't my
> intention to hurt anyone ever.
I believe that.
>I won't apologize for what felt to me,
> legitimate concerns based on my own thinking at the time and follow
> through with such. I won't apologize, no matter how much anyone (you,
> Laurie) argue contentions for how and why I had no basis, no grounds, etc. I
> am entitled to my experience, to my felt concerns for the group, to share them
> and I did.
An educated person such as you surely must know the difference
between concerns and character smearing. Other people seem to
be able to.
>For that, I will never apologize bc I'm inherently entitled to express
> myself. Did I ever act with the intention to harm or to insinuate that my
> concerns ~were~ happening? No.
Divided by a common language again 8(.
>
> As for mediation...I used what I was observing in ppl's responses over this
> and for me, that was enough. "What" ppl were saying to one another is
> important; what I focused on was "how" ppl were communicating - and
> again, based on my own observations of which, I owned as mine and offered
> suggestions, offered to ppl that they were free to toss if ppl felt no value in it,
> as was the case with my concerns. After examining myself in what you had to
> say concerning this and my concerns, I honestly see nothing wrong in what I
> attempted to achieve. If it landed within ppl in such a way as to harm them,
> again it wasn't my intention to harm you and I am saddened that this
> happened and apologize for the hurt caused. Perhaps, it would be best Laurie
> that we should simply leave it at "We agree to disagree." Sierra of TN
This bothers me, but as you point out, it's your choice.
a.
--
Before you can take something off the top, there
has to be a top to take it off of.
--conventional San Francisco political wisdom.
averti
averti wrote:
>
> Mosaics wrote:
> >
> > Laurie,
> >
> > I read your response in full and I honestly don't believe at this point in time, I
> > can place any more time into this; not a stitch beyond this post now.
>
> The following sentence, to me, sums it all up.
>
> >If you
> > knew what was going on here in TribalNation, I am sure you would fully
> > understand my withdrawal at this time.
Upon re-reading the above sentence, I am dissatisfied with my
earlier reply. It's none of my business why you need to
withdraw, but I should be elastic enough to accept that
you have good reasons, and that they don't have anything
to do with me. Not everything is about me 8).
I'm sorry for your tribulations, and it is wrong of me to
get into an argument about an argument about an argument
if you're not in shape or inclined to argue.
Grace
>Following up on my own self:
>
>averti wrote:
>>
>> Mosaics wrote:
>> >
>> > Laurie,
>> >
>> > I read your response in full and I honestly don't believe at this point in time, I
>> > can place any more time into this; not a stitch beyond this post now.
>>
>> The following sentence, to me, sums it all up.
>>
>> >If you
>> > knew what was going on here in TribalNation, I am sure you would fully
>> > understand my withdrawal at this time.
>
>Upon re-reading the above sentence, I am dissatisfied with my
>earlier reply. It's none of my business why you need to
>withdraw, but I should be elastic enough to accept that
>you have good reasons, and that they don't have anything
>to do with me. Not everything is about me 8).
>I'm sorry for your tribulations, and it is wrong of me to
>get into an argument about an argument about an argument
>if you're not in shape or inclined to argue.
>
>a.
I'm glad you posted this averti.
It felt that it was very important.
Grace
Mosaics
>
> Following up on my own self:
>
> averti wrote:
> > Mosaics wrote:
> > >
> > > Laurie,
> > >
> > > I read your response in full and I honestly don't believe at this point in
> > > time, I can place any more time into this; not a stitch beyond this post
> > > now.
> >
> > The following sentence, to me, sums it all up.
> >
> > > If you knew what was going on here in TribalNation, I am sure you
> > > would fully understand my withdrawal at this time.
>
> Upon re-reading the above sentence, I am dissatisfied with my earlier
> reply. It's none of my business why you need to withdraw, but I should be
> elastic enough to accept that you have good reasons, and that they don't
> have anything to do with me. Not everything is about me 8).
Thank you, averti. If it's any solace, what's occuring has nothing to do with
you or Laurie, or anyone here for that matter. It really stung when I read your
first reply and with hesitation, opened up this one by you. I'm glad I didn't
regret that choice. : o)
> I'm sorry for your tribulations,
Thanks. Me too. : o( If I could avoid what's happening entirely, I would...
gladly.
> and it is wrong of me to get into an argument about an argument about
> an argument
Hmmm.... I don't believe I was arguing. Ok by me if you see it this way. Your
insight is appreciated nonetheless. : o)
> if you're not in shape or inclined to argue.
Argue, no. Discuss, share and understand, sure (entirely contingent on not
enduring hard times as is presently). : o) Sierra of TN
averti
>
> averti wrote:
> >
> > Following up on my own self:
> >
> > averti wrote:
> > > Mosaics wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Laurie,
> > > >
> > > > I read your response in full and I honestly don't believe at this point in
> > > > time, I can place any more time into this; not a stitch beyond this post
> > > > now.
> > >
> > > The following sentence, to me, sums it all up.
> > >
> > > > If you knew what was going on here in TribalNation, I am sure you
> > > > would fully understand my withdrawal at this time.
> >
> > Upon re-reading the above sentence, I am dissatisfied with my earlier
> > reply. It's none of my business why you need to withdraw, but I should be
> > elastic enough to accept that you have good reasons, and that they don't
> > have anything to do with me. Not everything is about me 8).
>
> you or Laurie, or anyone here for that matter. It really stung when I read your
> first reply and with hesitation, opened up this one by you. I'm glad I didn't
> regret that choice. : o)
I'm glad too.
>
> > I'm sorry for your tribulations,
>
> Thanks. Me too. : o( If I could avoid what's happening entirely, I would...
> gladly.
I'm sure. Hope things even out somewhat as time goes by.
>
> > and it is wrong of me to get into an argument about an argument about
> > an argument
>
> Hmmm.... I don't believe I was arguing. Ok by me if you see it this way.
I think I was using ''arguing'' in the secondary meaning of
''exchanging views'' rather than challenging 8). I mean, there's
no resolution that I can see when two or more people take
different interpretational views on something. What you or I
think is what we think, and not likely to sudden reversal by
force of rhetoric.
> Your
> insight is appreciated nonetheless. : o)
>
> > if you're not in shape or inclined to argue.
>
> Argue, no. Discuss, share and understand, sure (entirely contingent on not
> enduring hard times as is presently). : o) Sierra of TN
Good.
--
I ain't broke, but I'm severely bent;
I need me some of those Green Presidents.
--Sonny Boy Williamson
Mosaics
>
> > > averti wrote:
> > > > Mosaics wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I read your response in full and I honestly don't believe at this
> > > > > point in time, I can place any more time into this; not a stitch
> > > > > beyond this post now.
> > > >
> > > > The following sentence, to me, sums it all up.
> > > >
> > > > > If you knew what was going on here in TribalNation, I am sure you
> > > > > would fully understand my withdrawal at this time.
> > >
> > > Upon re-reading the above sentence, I am dissatisfied with my earlier
> > > reply. It's none of my business why you need to withdraw, but I should
> > > be elastic enough to accept that you have good reasons, and that they
> > > don't have anything to do with me. Not everything is about me 8).
> >
> > with you or Laurie, or anyone here for that matter. It really stung when I
> > glad I didn't regret that choice. : o)
>
> I'm glad too.
: o)
> > > I'm sorry for your tribulations,
> >
> > Thanks. Me too. : o( If I could avoid what's happening entirely, I would...
> > gladly.
>
> I'm sure. Hope things even out somewhat as time goes by.
The clock is ticking. No, evening out as of yet. : o(
> > > and it is wrong of me to get into an argument about an argument about
> > > an argument
> >
> > Hmmm.... I don't believe I was arguing. Ok by me if you see it this way.
>
> I think I was using ''arguing'' in the secondary meaning of ''exchanging
> views'' rather than challenging 8).
Ok.
> I mean, there's no resolution that I can see when two or more people take
> different interpretational views on something. What you or I think is what
> we think, and not likely to sudden reversal by force of rhetoric.
: o)
> > Your insight is appreciated nonetheless. : o)
> >
> > > if you're not in shape or inclined to argue.
> >
> > Argue, no. Discuss, share and understand, sure (entirely contingent on
> > not enduring hard times as is presently). : o) Sierra of TN
>
> Good.
Yes, good. Sierra of TN