Would you pursue a romantic relationship with someone who has been sexually abused?

[milkweed]

This may sound rude, but the way I meant the "*fact* of being sexually abused or raped" is in the sense of an absolute category, a label. The it was once clearly separated between blacks or whites, or women or men.
There certainly is a politically correct way to approach victims of abuse, concentrating on the degree of the abuse on the degree of how well the person is coping with the consequences. Yet what they all have in common, no matter how bad the abuse, no matter how well they are coping with the consequences, is the label.
I don't know how exactly to test this, but I would like to find out how people react to the label "victim of sexual abuse". I do think it essentially works like a scarlet letter though. Just like one was segregated as a black person (even though they might have been of a lighter complexion), based on the label, I think that victims are segregated by the label principle as well.
That is what labels do: They erase the difference between the person who was taken naked pictures of through a teleobjective by a voyeour and published onlne, and the person who has been gangraped and beaten, for example.

It is still separated by all those categories you mentioned. Understanding why things are different (labels) allow us to react appropriately to different situations. I can understand why a person wouldnt want a label denoting "sexually abused". But people who wear the label "parapalegic" do not want that label either, nor do persons who wear the label "mentally ill". And there are not "absolutes" in any of these cases because not all parapalegics have the same cause for their condition, and that applies to the mentally ill as well.

Some victims of sexual abuse are segregated. But its not nessesarily by the label "sexually abused" its by their behavior or social abilities. Theres plenty of people sitting home on prom night alone and its not because of sexual abuse labels. There are plenty of surviors of sexual abuse including rape, who do not find themselves segregated. Yes labels can be used to hurt persons. But I think most often they are used to help others understand the diversity of people and their experiences. And then we as potential partners, make a decision based on what we understand and what our own goals are, for what may be a commitment for the rest of our lives.

Yes there is a difference in picture taking via lenses and gang rape. But I dont know that I would label myself the victim of sexual abuse were I to have suffered the camera event as you described it. I think I would label myself as "ripped off by some moFo with a camera". For a relationship encounter as you seem to be implying, it seems totally up to the person who has been abused as to what label they present themselves to their partner with. Any adjustments to that label that the partner decides is accurate, are probably based on behavior.

There are limits to everything.
There are "lighter" issues that partners can and should help eachother with, and then there are "heavy" issues that should be left to professionals.

Yes limits to everything including how much rejection a partner in a relationship can deal with. A few people, myself included, have said there are degrees of sexually assault which we wouldnt be comfortable messing with. Some have refered to psychological baggage, I refered to systematic abuse, etc. And there are limits to what you think a partner should be allowed to do in this relationship. If you think there are "heavy" issues that a partner has no business being involved in, then you must accept the counter-point of, there are heavy issues I dont feel I should have to deal with in my idea of a healthy relationship. Relationships are about more than one person.

You seem to want absolutes here and simply put you are not going to get them. People are not mathematical formulas. And as far as I know thats about the place in the universe where you have even a fair chance of obtaining absolutes.

.

 

[water]

c20H25N3o,

So why post a topic about romantic pursuit? Why not post a topic along the lines of 'What is the best way to deal with an abused person when you discover they have been abused?' or
'What can an abused person hope for in any kind of relationship?'

Had you asked a question not dedicated to romantic pursuit then my response may have been very different.

Do you see?

I see it very well. There are many ways to approach this issue, and I didn't want to be too suggestive.
My line of thought was along the question "Do you consider a person who has been sexually abused or raped, as "damaged goods"?" -- but this was to suggestive, so I went for a practical application (romantic pursuit) where this would show. Asking the question about damaged goods, I can imagine to get a lot of politically correct responses, and this I wanted to avoid.


* * *

Roman,

What made you feel you had to tack on "today's world"? That somehow we were more sensitive a century ago? Yesteryear's better than today?

Bullshit. We wallow in our own self pity. Have a problem? Go bitch to your friends, your shrink, a counselor, strangers. It's more ok than ever to complain about all the pathetic shit you can't cope with. It's digusting really, how people can no longer cope. It used to be people were tough and could handle their problems.

But in today's world, most people are weak and feel compelled to have a professional caress their ego, tell them they're ok, and if they're still feeling down, drug them.

Light is espousing the attitude that "we are all by default responsible for eachother" and "we need others in order to be happy and safe" (this, we have learned in the other thread).

The problem with this attitude is that it forces on people to be weak, it makes people understand themselves as more insecure, more weak, more dependent on others than I believe we actually are. That attitude is espousing what is popularily called "codependency" as a positive norm (it denies it though).

In our "modern" culture which abhors any suffering, strife or pain, which is sterile and bourgeois, codependency thrives as a positive norm. And if one isn't like that, then people like Light come and try to make her feel guilty for not depending on others.

When I advocate for the victims to seek professional help, I mean this esp. for the sake of breaking out of that destructive pattern of being dependent on another for one's happiness. Because codependent laypeople like to make the victim feel even more helpless and even more dependent on other people, while cognitive therapy can teach the victim healthier ways of living a life and to look after themselves.

Therapy doesn't have to be about fondling the ego; granted, many people would like that.

 

[water]

milkweed,

You seem to want absolutes here and simply put you are not going to get them. People are not mathematical formulas. And as far as I know thats about the place in the universe where you have even a fair chance of obtaining absolutes.

My interest in the topic is multifacetted. One of my interests are absolutes, and how people justify them.
You can se that a few people answered with a clear no -- and these I am most interested in. I'd like to see the reasoning behind it -- but it looks those people won't show up again here.

 

[one_raven]

I think anyone who answers a blanket "No" to this question is being shallow at best.
I have known (and dated) sexually abused women who were "normal and well adjusted" and some who were royally fucked up. I have known and been with women who were not sexually abused who were "normal and well adjusted" and some who were royally fucked up.
There are so many things that could destroy someone's psyche, and if you decided to place some kind of relationship criteria to weed out potentially fucked up ones, then you will have no one left to select from.
Besides, I'd be willing to be that quite a few women you know (even ones you have been with) have been sexually abused and you simply do not know about it.
No, if the question was, "Would you refuse to get into a relationship with someone who was royally fucked up as a result of their sexual abuse?" it would be an entirely different matter. Which would, of course, beg the questions regarding if someone gets raped and that fucks them up after you have already established a relationship with them.

 

[c20H25N3o]

c20H25N3o,

I see it very well. There are many ways to approach this issue, and I didn't want to be too suggestive.
My line of thought was along the question "Do you consider a person who has been sexually abused or raped, as "damaged goods"?" -- but this was to suggestive, so I went for a practical application (romantic pursuit) where this would show. Asking the question about damaged goods, I can imagine to get a lot of politically correct responses, and this I wanted to avoid.

A person who has been abused is damaged.

We tend to throw damaged goods away in our society even if there is nothing wrong with the actual contents i.e. the damage is purely aesthetic.

Some people make a living from repairing damaged goods.

Some people are just happy to have any goods at all damaged or not.

But we are not talking about a 'commodity' are we?

Do you see actually see people as 'goods' ?

thanks

c20

 

[one_raven]

I think it's sad how many people said no right off the bat.
Even if you include difficult emotional damage as a result of the abuse in the question (which you didn't), the quick refusal of getting into a relationship would be saddening to me.

 

[water]

c20H25N3o,

A person who has been abused is damaged.

I know that some will probably want to lynch me for this, but I don't think that a person who has been abused is "damaged".

The victims certainly are viewed as damaged by those people who differentiate between the "damaged" and the "non-damaged". And not rarely, victims think this way as well. It seems to be the most common way to view them.
People who believe that the material is the most important in life, certainly view people (and themselves) in terms of commodities.

In order to consider someone "damaged", we need some standard to which we compare them to -- even though this standard may never be explicitly stated, it is at work all the same. And this is the ever elusive standard of "normalcy".


I dare say that not so rarely, fighting the societal stygmas connected to abuse, this whole standard of "Things should be so and so" is causing greater anguish to the victims than the abuse itself.

The victims are facing other people who meet them with their ideas of how-it-should-be, and based on this the according assessment and often judgment of the victim and their situation.
The victims get to hear: "It is bad to be raped. You have been raped, and this makes you a bad person/damaged goods. You are not normal anymore." There are, of course, many politically correct ways to say this, like "I'm so sorry to hear about your situation. Take as much time for your recovery as you need." and then they shun them, under the pretense of "giving them time and space".

To make the matter worse, the enemy lives in the victim's head, saying those same things as those other people. If a person grew up to understand themselves in terms of "goods", then an experience like rape will be devastating for them.

This is going to sound clinical and awful, and extremely hard to apply in life, but yes: It is not abuse itself that messes people up, it is the way they view this abuse and how they respond to it.

Do you see actually see people as 'goods' ?

Personally, I don't see people as "goods", no.


* * *


one_raven,

I think it's sad how many people said no right off the bat.
Even if you include difficult emotional damage as a result of the abuse in the question (which you didn't), the quick refusal of getting into a relationship would be saddening to me.

A quick negative response shows the power of labels.

 

[c20H25N3o]

It is not abuse itself that messes people up, it is the way they view this abuse and how they respond to it.

as James_R put it so eloquently in a similiar discussion - abuse is abuse.

and similiary rape is rape.

It already has definition. If abuse is no longer abuse or you wish to define unconsenting physical contact as a 'normal phenomena' then why are we discussing it?

If abuse in and of itself is a harmless affair why do we label it abuse?

a·buse ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-byz)
tr.v. a·bused, a·bus·ing, a·bus·es
To use wrongly or improperly; misuse: abuse alcohol; abuse a privilege.
To hurt or injure by maltreatment; ill-use.
To force sexual activity on; rape or molest.
To assail with contemptuous, coarse, or insulting words; revile.

It seems that you are saying something like, 'if i punch you in the face, its not the punch that is the problem but rather the way you clean the blood up thats the problem.'

Help me out here!

peace

c20

 

[Baron Max]

I think it's sad how many people said no right off the bat.
Even if you include difficult emotional damage as a result of the abuse in the question (which you didn't), the quick refusal of getting into a relationship would be saddening to me.

You "sadden" easily, One_Raven. You should re-examine your position and consider any and all of the reasons why people will quickly refuse to get into relationships ....those reasons abound! ...her tits are too small. ...her ass is too big. ...she's too smart. ...she likes cats. ...and the list goes on and on, and most, if not all, of those "reasons" are as important as "emotional damage".

I can only conclude that you walk around in life in a constant state of "saddened".

Baron Max

 

[one_raven]

Well, you jump to whatever conclusions suit you, Baron. You will, anyway.

 

[Light]

Light is espousing the attitude that "we are all by default responsible for eachother" and "we need others in order to be happy and safe" (this, we have learned in the other thread).

The problem with this attitude is that it forces on people to be weak, it makes people understand themselves as more insecure, more weak, more dependent on others than I believe we actually are. That attitude is espousing what is popularily called "codependency" as a positive norm (it denies it though).

In our "modern" culture which abhors any suffering, strife or pain, which is sterile and bourgeois, codependency thrives as a positive norm. And if one isn't like that, then people like Light come and try to make her feel guilty for not depending on others.

Water, I cannot see why you persist in being adversial. And I never even once said that "we need each others in order to be happy and safe." Horse-hockey, woman! I said that others CAN effect our happiness and safety, especially negativly.

And I'm in no way trying to make "her" (or him, or it) feel guilty for not being "dependent" on others. More pure horse-hockey straight from your twisted logic, not mine, I'm a firm believer in individual independency even to the point that I strongly advocate it many, many times. However, I also advocate having interpersonal relationships because that alone is one the more important and enjoyable aspects of life.

You may feel free to keep trying to slant everything I say in an attempt to make ME fit your own twisted version of how YOU think I should feel according to you but be assured that many people here are smart enough to understand exactly what I'm saying - even if you don't want to - and they can also see how truly warped your attempts are.

Go soak in it.

 

[milkweed]

milkweed,
My interest in the topic is multifacetted. One of my interests are absolutes, and how people justify them.
You can se that a few people answered with a clear no -- and these I am most interested in. I'd like to see the reasoning behind it -- but it looks those people won't show up again here.

Reading back over the posts that did respond, it seems the responses state it is the psychological impact on the victim which is what people are trying to avoid when establishing relationships with sexual abuse survivors.

 

[milkweed]

I think anyone who answers a blanket "No" to this question is being shallow at best.

There are so many things that could destroy someone's psyche, and if you decided to place some kind of relationship criteria to weed out potentially fucked up ones, then you will have no one left to select from.

Oh come on.... Everyone has relationship criteria. And these criteria change for most as they age and experience different things.

I think its shallow that you should imply that a persons choice on who they decide to have a relationship with should be open to any psychological possiblity, when the psychological condition of a potential partner does factor in to what most decide is desirable for a relationship. And it does factor into what chance of success a relationship has in lasting.

There are lots of risks I wont take with my future. And establishing relationships as I understand this poll to be about is about the future and inherent risks involved for me (as one of the responders to this poll).
.

 

[milkweed]

I think it's sad how many people said no right off the bat.
Even if you include difficult emotional damage as a result of the abuse in the question (which you didn't), the quick refusal of getting into a relationship would be saddening to me.

I think it says a whole lot positive that only 3 out of 18 respondents said no. And I didnt vote because I found yes/no absolutes to be too limiting.

Theres a whole bunch we do not know about abuse. And theres even more we do not know about "psychological". For an average person out their making life decisions, for you to negate anyones personal feelings on such a subject, which DOES impact the whole of the relationship is pretty selfish.

Clip from one study:

In this existential-phenomenological investigation five men were interviewed about their experience of being a male significant other (MSO) of a female sexual assault victim. The purpose of the study was to understand the MSO's meaning of the rape and the emotional impact it had on him. The thematic structure of a man's response to having a female significant other sexually assaulted depicts an impact on his emotional life in four significant areas: (1) his immediate painful thoughts and feelings, (2) his relationship with the victim, (3) his world view on male attitudes, and (4) the long-term effects of the trauma. It is an experience that has left him feeling angry, helpless, and guilty, prompted him to self-inspection, and thus changed him forever.

Source:Marilyn Smith . Female Sexual Assault: The Impact on the Male Significant Other. Issues in Mental Health Nursing, Volume 26, Number 2 (February-March 2005), pp. 149-167,
.

 

[water]

c20H25N3o,

as James_R put it so eloquently in a similiar discussion - abuse is abuse.

? Stating identities doesn't get us anywhere.

and similiary rape is rape.

It already has definition. If abuse is no longer abuse or you wish to define unconsenting physical contact as a 'normal phenomena' then why are we discussing it?

If abuse in and of itself is a harmless affair why do we label it abuse?

a·buse ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-byz)
tr.v. a·bused, a·bus·ing, a·bus·es
To use wrongly or improperly; misuse: abuse alcohol; abuse a privilege.
To hurt or injure by maltreatment; ill-use.
To force sexual activity on; rape or molest.
To assail with contemptuous, coarse, or insulting words; revile.

None of these statements say anything about the state of the abused one.

If someone calls you a lowlife, does this obligate you to feel like a lowlife?

It seems that you are saying something like, 'if i punch you in the face, its not the punch that is the problem but rather the way you clean the blood up thats the problem.'

No, this is not what I am saying.

I'm saying that even though you have been abused, this does not mean that you must feel abused, you do not have to take on the identity of being an abused person. You do not have to think that the abuse defines who you are.

Again, try to first think in the terms of a less traumatic example: Someone calls you names, calls you an idiot. Does this make you an idiot?
Or, someone calls your thinking warped. Does this make your thinking warped, are you obligated to think that your thinking is warped just because someone said so?

 

[Light]

Or, someone calls your thinking warped. Does this make your thinking warped, are you obligated to think that your thinking is warped just because someone said so?

By itself, absolutely not. However, when your demeanor vets the accusation...

 

[water]

Water, I cannot see why you persist in being adversial.

/.../

Go soak in it.

You are "adversial". You are unable to let me be.
You cannot see me across the mountains of your ego and of your assumptions.
You are a control freak. A seemingly polite, passively aggressive control
freak.

Contribute to this thread, or leave.

If you want a fight, start a thread for that particular purpose.

 

[water]

I'd be interested to know what those who have answered with a clear no would
do if they were raped.
Would they think themselves "fucked up" and unfit for relationships, just
like they think others who have been raped are "fucked up" and unfit for
relationships?
Would they be happy with being rejected because they were raped?

 

[Light]

You are "adversial". You are unable to let me be.
You cannot see me across the mountains of your ego and of your assumptions.
You are a control freak. A seemingly polite, passively aggressive control
freak.

Contribute to this thread, or leave.

If you want a fight, start a thread for that particular purpose.

Ahh, how you misjudge me! I don't wish to be adversarial, neither am I a control freak. In fact, I utterly despise people like that. I must point out, madam, that the vast majority of assumptions have occurred at your keyboard (as shown above) and not at mine.

I've made several contributions to this thread, all of which I felt were valid.

I want no fight. You might want to check a few of my other posts on different topics where I've attempted to be helpful. And I've done so here as well, offering what I believe to be valid thoughts - even as the topic wanders slightly.

Also, it's rather apparent that you neglected to address the other issues in my post that you just quoted from. May I ask why?

 

[water]

Also, it's rather apparent that you neglected to address the other issues in my post that you just quoted from. May I ask why?

Because you said:

Go soak in it.

Once you get serious, I'll talk to you.