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

[c20H25N3o]

If people would not hold the belief "Other people should respect us", then there would be nothing there to be hurt when other people would not respect us.

This for me is the bit that seems flawed.

You are basically saying 'Have no expectations of others and you will not be disappointed'. Now this would lead to anarchy if everyone adopted the same philosophy. I could come and rape you, knowing that you didn't expect any different and wouldn't suffer any long term consequences. Do you want to support that kind of philosophy?

peace

c20

 

[Light]

This for me is the bit that seems flawed.

You are basically saying 'Have no expectations of others and you will not be disappointed'. Now this would lead to anarchy if everyone adopted the same philosophy. I could come and rape you, knowing that you didn't expect any different and wouldn't suffer any long term consequences. Do you want to support that kind of philosophy?

peace

c20

Yes, C20, it's seriously flawed. Not only would it result in excatly what you've described, it would take away a very beautiful part of normal life. She's clearly not considered the ramifications of the attitude she's trying to sell.

 

[water]

This for me is the bit that seems flawed.

You are basically saying 'Have no expectations of others and you will not be disappointed'.

Now this would lead to anarchy if everyone adopted the same philosophy.

I don't see why that would lead to anarchy.

Instead of basing our interaction on a perceived necessity, we can base it on decisions made by the application of free will.

What this takes away from life is the things-that-go-without-saying though. Instead of taking things for granted, all would have to be a matter of an explicit agreement. I do not see what could be detrimental about that.

I could come and rape you, knowing that you didn't expect any different and wouldn't suffer any long term consequences. Do you want to support that kind of philosophy?

What makes you think that I'd just let you do what you want?
Just because I don't have expectations does not mean that I don't have measures of right and wrong.

 

[cosmictraveler]

I'd help someone who needed the help, I would not want anything in return for my assistance to them. If they were to thank me, I would apprieciate it but did not expect it, that won't create anarchy it will bring about good will.

 

[c20H25N3o]

Instead of basing our interaction on a perceived necessity, we can base it on decisions made by the application of free will.

So I choose to rape you. You choose to not be affected by it. I am not sure this is the proper application of free will!

What this takes away from life is the things-that-go-without-saying though. Instead of taking things for granted, all would have to be a matter of an explicit agreement. I do not see what could be detrimental about that.

Rape or abuse isnt about explicit agreement though is it? Explicit agreement indicates mutual respect.

What makes you think that I'd just let you do what you want?

What?!? You want me to have respect for you? I am a rapist. I just want to f*ck you at knifepoint.

Just because I don't have expectations does not mean that I don't have measures of right and wrong.

If you have measures of right and wrong then de facto you cannot help but measure the wrong that has been done to you. It is this measuring process that manifests itself as the negative mental effects of being raped or abused.

No?

peace

c20

 

[Jenyar]

This thread is doubly interesting because the questions put by the OP comes complete with its own case study...

For instance, a statement by water, explaining her philosophy (which can be described as "mind over matter") goes like this:

water: "If someone calls you a lowlife, does this obligate you to feel like a lowlife?"​

She previously explained that under this philosophy, something like "I'm so sorry to hear about your situation. Take as much time for your recovery as you need" can be seen as a veiled rejection, implying that there is something inherently wrong and rejectionable about the victim. With the "mind over matter" philosophy, the "victim" would be treated dispassionately, as if nothing had been "wrong". Perhaps a proper response would be "get your wounds treated and be back at work tomorrow."

But if there are no physical wounds, the victim would voluntarily be succumbing to a victimizing society if she were to consider herself "abused". (Although the question that must be answered then is: Why can she be a victim of mental abuse - the "bad programming" by society - in one case, but not in the other - the "bad experience" of a rape? Just because her will wasn't engaged? Water answered this with legal criteria, i.e. an external - hopefully objective - measurement. But that's just another facet of the perpetrating "society", or isn't it? The expectation of "other people should respect us" merely shifts from one external source to another, and is equally prone to disappointment.)

Now, since Light was represented as espousing a "bad philosophy" that creates victims (people who end up regarding themselves as weak and codependent), and therefore as a perpetrator of abuse, this provides an ideal test case to see how this philosophy holds up in practice.

How should a victim of the psychological (i.e. non-physical) abuse Light has been accused of react? Taking the OP's approach again:

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.

How can the accusations levelled against him (which one can assume come from water's own "ideas of how-it-should-be") be justified, if they are of the same kind (seemingly intolerant, abusive and manipulative) that was considered unjustifiable and meriting no response? If there may be no "should", there cannot be a "should" from either party, and therefore no right or wrong. But if there is a right or wrong way to act, a person may very well make both right and wrong statements, and these should be distinguishable from the person himself (their "identity").

And now that Light has become a victim of non-physical "abuse", is he obligated to identify with water's accusations (which would lead to an apology, a change of behaviour, or him leaving, for instance), or should he instead refuse to be "victimized" and continue defending himself on his own standards of what is reasonable?

If the cycle of abuse (where the victim of A becomes an abuser of B) can only be stopped by professional help, how must the victim learn to accept professional help (since the professional will inevitably contradict the victim's currently held standards of measuring themselves and for bearing criticism)? The victim cannot help being conscious of the affected part of their identity (whether physical or psychological), and they might see the process of getting/asking for help as a validation that this identity has weaknesses and therefore can reasonably be labelled as "weak" - and if they already had a low self-esteem, this partial weakness would be the the resounding "proof" of an assumed overall weakness. This is what allows fallacies like "I am what has happened to me", and "It is bad to be raped. You have been raped, and this makes you a bad person/damaged goods." (The "bad" of rape actually refers to the experience, while the victim assumes it to refer to themselves.) The associated evil becomes reassigned in a seemingly reasonable manner (because there is "proof"). How are such invalid assocations exposed and severed?

It think it's a relevant question for two reasons. Firstly, the alternative is denial and virtual isolation. It seems a large percentage of victims actively resent the very people who are qualified to help them, and instead assume a kind of superiority over them ("I know what it means to be a victim, you think you do - which is why you're trying to help - but you really don't.) As a further rationalization, they consider their situation to be unique that no "label", not even the most cursory and tentative diagnosis, ever applies. This way, they are convinced that their case is untreatable, and the hope that they could live a normal life is artificially suppressed by the assurance that all help (professional or otherwise) will ultimately prove futile. This scepticism might save them the pain of further disappointment. (Light, maybe you can corroborate or contradict these observations?)

The second reason relates more to the original question of this thread: when a prospective romantic interest makes the same (mis)association, they will inevitably react to the victim in the same way as they would react to the perpetrator - with disgust. Then it doesn't help to say "nothing personal", since it's as personal for one as for the other. If there isn't enough objectivity to see the problem as a problem and the person as a person, then the relationship will be prone to false accusations and distrust from one or both sides.

 

[Jenyar]

Instead of taking things for granted, all would have to be a matter of an explicit agreement. I do not see what could be detrimental about that.

I think what c20 asks could be put in other words: What if the explicit agreement of others (how they apply their free will) offends or even abuses you? And this might include the justice system (i.e. someone who is a victim of an unjust government). Whether you feel abused, taken advantage of, or victimized, would then have very little to do with how far you are able to suppress your expectations from the power of "explicit agreements" (which is what you express above), and a lot to do with your acknowledgement of what justice is. The admission that you are a victim would then be indicative of your sense of right and wrong, and the denial that you are a victim, far from putting you in a position of strength and on the road to recovery, would amount to condoning their behaviour and assuming responsibilty for the abuse (a form of the misassocation I mention above).

In other words: the reality of your physical or psychological abuse would point directly to the culpability of the abuser or abusive system. Because they were responsible for your situation, you are a proper victim. If you just think you are a victim (while you're in fact not), you are in effect denying that the perpetrator is really a perpetrator and accountable as such (he probably also thinks you should get over it as if nothing happened). But if no damage was done, has a crime really been committed?

 

[Shifty Russian]

No, don't want the baggage.

- Shifty Russian
www.WhoMakesYouSick.com

 

[Light]

It think it's a relevant question for two reasons. Firstly, the alternative is denial and virtual isolation. It seems a large percentage of victims actively resent the very people who are qualified to help them, and instead assume a kind of superiority over them ("I know what it means to be a victim, you think you do - which is why you're trying to help - but you really don't.) As a further rationalization, they consider their situation to be unique that no "label", not even the most cursory and tentative diagnosis, ever applies. This way, they are convinced that their case is untreatable, and the hope that they could live a normal life is artificially suppressed by the assurance that all help (professional or otherwise) will ultimately prove futile. This scepticism might save them the pain of further disappointment. (Light, maybe you can corroborate or contradict these observations?)

Excellent, Jenyar, and very well put. In fact your entire post was quite accurate in describing many of the facets of the problem. For purposes of brevity I only quoted the one part (above) but it was all equally as good.

Yes, what you have described is a major part of the individual's problem in many cases. Simply put, it's a self-fulfilling prophecy that in essence says "I cannot be helped and therefore you cannot help me."

The sad thing is that the very protective shell they place around themselves to keep others out (well intentioned or not) also serves to confine them. Therefore, they have left themselves with little to focus on besides their own disappointment and self-pity. This usually can result in nothing but a downward spiral that destroys their sense of self-worth and their very ego.

All of this is quite clear in Water's response to many of my statements. She reads "between the lines" and finds things that actually aren't there at all. It's a quite natural defensive process of someone that's been taken advantage of and can most easily be described by saying the individual expects everyone to have ulterior motives - motives designed precisely for taking advantage of her yet again.

And the closer to the truth one gets, as I did, the stronger the individual reacts. And at that point is when their responses become even more illogical and even slightly irrational at times. Very often saying the other person said things they did NOT say (and actually believing themselves to be correct in this) and also clearly distorting what the other said. Both of those responses are actually the same thing - rather than taking at face value what was actually said, they foolishly try to look deeper and take it as what they think was intended.

For all intents and purposes, they've actually developed a milder form of paranoia. I say "milder" because it's not the all-encompassing paranoia that makes them suspect practically every individual. For women - like Water, it's usually limited to males only and only of subset of them. All of this is not really a result of the individual thinking. They have stopped thinking logically and turned over that function to their protective shell. So it is the shell speaking, not the person themselves. The shell is not logical and does not sift information to determine validity - it's only function is to block.

 

[water]

c20H25N3o,

So I choose to rape you. You choose to not be affected by it. I am not sure this is the proper application of free will!

How is it not a proper application of free will? You can use your free will to either rape me or buy me flowers.
If you decide to assault me, and force yourself on me, then I will do my best to get away form you, and the power struggle between us will decide what happens.

Rape or abuse isnt about explicit agreement though is it?

No, it is not.

Explicit agreement indicates mutual respect.

Ideally, yes.
But you have the free will to either opt for respect and explicit agreement, or to opt for violence.

What makes you think that I'd just let you do what you want?

What?!? You want me to have respect for you?

It would be nice if you would respect me. But whether you respect me or not is your choice and I cannot affect it; I am not responsible for your actions.

I am a rapist. I just want to f*ck you at knifepoint.

Then such is your application of free will.

Just because I don't have expectations does not mean that I don't have measures of right and wrong.

If you have measures of right and wrong then de facto you cannot help but measure the wrong that has been done to you. It is this measuring process that manifests itself as the negative mental effects of being raped or abused.

No?

The wrong that you think that you have done to me may not be the same wrong that I think that you have done to me.

If you rape me, I will press charges against you, whatever options the law gives me.
But I will try my best to not identify with the act of rape, and with whatever your intentions and words were.

Maybe you have raped me with the intention to demean me, maybe your intention was to "break my spirit". Maybe, while raping me, you told me what a piece of shit I am and that I deserve no better than being raped.

But it doesn't have to be that your intentions will be realized; it doesn't have to be that I say afterwards, "He wanted to break my spirit, so he raped me. Yes, he won, my spirit is broken, I am a piece of shit and I will never recover."

Maybe you think thus:
"Rape ruins the victim's spirit. If I rape her, I will ruin her spiritually."
Only if I think the same way, only if I also think that rape ruins the victim's spirit, only then will you succeed in your intentions upon which you have acted with raping me.

But there is no prescribed or obligatory connection between the intentions for rape and the act of rape. Motivations for rape vary; if the rapist and the victim share the same understanding of rape, then the perpetrator's intentions will be realized, otherwise, they will not.


* * *


Jenyar,

For instance, a statement by water, explaining her philosophy (which can be described as "mind over matter") goes like this:

My "philosophy" is not "mind over matter", this phrasing is simplified and skewed.

water: "If someone calls you a lowlife, does this obligate you to feel like a lowlife?"
She previously explained that under this philosophy, something like "I'm so sorry to hear about your situation. Take as much time for your recovery as you need" can be seen as a veiled rejection, implying that there is something inherently wrong and rejectionable about the victim.

Read the whole paragraph where I said that:

Now, since Light was represented as espousing a "bad philosophy" that creates victims (people who end up regarding themselves as weak and codependent), and therefore as a perpetrator of abuse

Are you making these assumptions just to see how I would respond to them?

How should a victim of the psychological (i.e. non-physical) abuse Light has been accused of react? Taking the OP's approach again:

“ Originally Posted by water
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. ”


How can the accusations levelled against him (which one can assume come from water's own "ideas of how-it-should-be") be justified, if they are of the same kind (seemingly intolerant, abusive and manipulative) that was considered unjustifiable and meriting no response? If there may be no "should", there cannot be a "should" from either party, and therefore no right or wrong. But if there is a right or wrong way to act, a person may very well make both right and wrong statements, and these should be distinguishable from the person himself (their "identity").

And now that Light has become a victim of non-physical "abuse", is he obligated to identify with water's accusations (which would lead to an apology, a change of behaviour, or him leaving, for instance), or should he instead refuse to be "victimized" and continue defending himself on his own standards of what is reasonable?

My health comes before other people's egos. This means that I will defend myself.
I don't approve of the way I have reacted towards Light, but in the given situation, there was no positive outcome for me anyway.
He has, already in the other thread, decided to not respect me, and has continued this attitude here. He seeks unilateral approval; he wants me to approve of him, while he refuses to approve of me. So it has been between us since the beginning.

If I weren't still under the influence of my older training, I would not have communicated with him here at all; I would have left him alone from his first post on where he said I am not someone he would want to know.

Unfortunately for those who cling on to the other person being consistent, I am a person in "transition"; so some of my behaviours are still from the older set, and some are already from the new set. I apologize, but so it is.

If the cycle of abuse (where the victim of A becomes an abuser of B) can only be stopped by professional help, how must the victim learn to accept professional help (since the professional will inevitably contradict the victim's currently held standards of measuring themselves and for bearing criticism)?

This is what you think.
I prefer a professional anytime over a "friend" who imposes himself on me as my therapist.

The victim cannot help being conscious of the affected part of their identity (whether physical or psychological), and they might see the process of getting/asking for help as a validation that this identity has weaknesses and therefore can reasonably be labelled as "weak" - and if they already had a low self-esteem, this partial weakness would be the the resounding "proof" of an assumed overall weakness.

You are forgetting that I don't cling to my perceived identity.
Face it, you are a lay and not a professional and you have assessed my situation wrongly. I, afraid to disagree with you as this might mean your rejection, went along with whatever you said. This, of course, made me ill, so I defended myself -- but without actually being aware of it, only good that I still have such instincts -- which you then labeled as "You don't accept my acceptance".

The kindest thing you could have done is to go see a counselor and ask them what you, as a friend of an abused person, can do and how you can behave to aid them in their recovery. But you have not done so.

This is what allows fallacies like "I am what has happened to me", and "It is bad to be raped. You have been raped, and this makes you a bad person/damaged goods." (The "bad" of rape actually refers to the experience, while the victim assumes it to refer to themselves.) The associated evil becomes reassigned in a seemingly reasonable manner (because there is "proof").

How are such invalid assocations exposed and severed?

Personally, I don't think that can be done directly; I think those invalid associations are exposed and severed as a side-product of other processes. I don't have insight into the whole reasoning behind recovery therapy, but professional psychology has done a lot in this field, and I think they can be very good at it.

It think it's a relevant question for two reasons. Firstly, the alternative is denial and virtual isolation. It seems a large percentage of victims actively resent the very people who are qualified to help them, and instead assume a kind of superiority over them ("I know what it means to be a victim, you think you do - which is why you're trying to help - but you really don't.) As a further rationalization, they consider their situation to be unique that no "label", not even the most cursory and tentative diagnosis, ever applies. This way, they are convinced that their case is untreatable, and the hope that they could live a normal life is artificially suppressed by the assurance that all help (professional or otherwise) will ultimately prove futile. This scepticism might save them the pain of further disappointment.

I can imagine some victims are like that, yes. I don't assume to know their motivations.

The second reason relates more to the original question of this thread: when a prospective romantic interest makes the same (mis)association, they will inevitably react to the victim in the same way as they would react to the perpetrator - with disgust. Then it doesn't help to say "nothing personal", since it's as personal for one as for the other. If there isn't enough objectivity to see the problem as a problem and the person as a person, then the relationship will be prone to false accusations and distrust from one or both sides.

I agree.

I think what c20 asks could be put in other words: What if the explicit agreement of others (how they apply their free will) offends or even abuses you? And this might include the justice system (i.e. someone who is a victim of an unjust government).

Of course, such things happen all the time.

Whether you feel abused, taken advantage of, or victimized, would then have very little to do with how far you are able to suppress your expectations from the power of "explicit agreements" (which is what you express above), and a lot to do with your acknowledgement of what justice is. The admission that you are a victim would then be indicative of your sense of right and wrong, and the denial that you are a victim, far from putting you in a position of strength and on the road to recovery, would amount to condoning their behaviour and assuming responsibilty for the abuse (a form of the misassocation I mention above).

Admitting that one is a victim, is only the first step on the way. It is not something to continually dwell on. If you can do something about the abuse, do so; if there is nothing you could do about it, then make your best efforts to not let it define you.

In other words: the reality of your physical or psychological abuse would point directly to the culpability of the abuser or abusive system. Because they were responsible for your situation, you are a proper victim. If you just think you are a victim (while you're in fact not), you are in effect denying that the perpetrator is really a perpetrator and accountable as such (he probably also thinks you should get over it as if nothing happened). But if no damage was done, has a crime really been committed?

I don't see where you are aiming with this.

 

[water]

Excellent, Jenyar, and very well put. In fact your entire post was quite accurate in describing many of the facets of the problem. For purposes of brevity I only quoted the one part (above) but it was all equally as good.

Yes, what you have described is a major part of the individual's problem in many cases. Simply put, it's a self-fulfilling prophecy that in essence says "I cannot be helped and therefore you cannot help me."

The sad thing is that the very protective shell they place around themselves to keep others out (well intentioned or not) also serves to confine them. Therefore, they have left themselves with little to focus on besides their own disappointment and self-pity. This usually can result in nothing but a downward spiral that destroys their sense of self-worth and their very ego.

All of this is quite clear in Water's response to many of my statements. She reads "between the lines" and finds things that actually aren't there at all. It's a quite natural defensive process of someone that's been taken advantage of and can most easily be described by saying the individual expects everyone to have ulterior motives - motives designed precisely for taking advantage of her yet again.

And the closer to the truth one gets, as I did, the stronger the individual reacts. And at that point is when their responses become even more illogical and even slightly irrational at times. Very often saying the other person said things they did NOT say (and actually believing themselves to be correct in this) and also clearly distorting what the other said. Both of those responses are actually the same thing - rather than taking at face value what was actually said, they foolishly try to look deeper and take it as what they think was intended.

For all intents and purposes, they've actually developed a milder form of paranoia. I say "milder" because it's not the all-encompassing paranoia that makes them suspect practically every individual. For women - like Water, it's usually limited to males only and only of subset of them. All of this is not really a result of the individual thinking. They have stopped thinking logically and turned over that function to their protective shell. So it is the shell speaking, not the person themselves. The shell is not logical and does not sift information to determine validity - it's only function is to block.

The problem is that you and other self-proclaimed specialists for the human psyche are so self-absorbed and so shallow that you seek out only the symptoms which confirm your assumptions, but neglect other symptoms that go against your assumptions.
You have stopped listening to me long ago, and so has Jenyar.

As if it weren't difficult enough that I have to deal with my problems, I also have to deal with other people's lack of wisdom and lack of compassion.

 

[water]

Water has Water's suffering.

Jenyar has Jenyar's suffering.

Light has Light's suffering.


Okay.

 

[Light]

The problem is that you and other self-proclaimed specialists for the human psyche are so self-absorbed and so shallow that you seek out only the symptoms which confirm your assumptions, but neglect other symptoms that go against your assumptions.
You have stopped listening to me long ago, and so has Jenyar.

As if it weren't difficult enough that I have to deal with my problems, I also have to deal with other people's lack of wisdom and lack of compassion.

Who ever said I had no compassion, besides you just now?

It was precisely your lack of compassion, Water, that got us off to the wrong start. Remember your statements about the victims of the WTC collapse? It was that lack of compassion on your part for the families and loved ones left behind that caused me to say that you didn't seem to be someone I'd like to know.

In the area where I live and among the people who actually know me (which you do not) I'm well known for being a very compassionate individual. For example, did you go to New Orleans (twice, at your own expense) to hand out bottled water, diapers, apply bandages to minor wounds, help console those who needed it, and all the rest of that? I went twice for three days each. Drove over 350 miles each way and did not sleep a single wink until I got back home three days later. (Hardly bothered to eat, either, because there wasn't much to go around.)

I held infants while feeding them because the mothers were too exhausted to do it every time. Changed diapers on adults because they were too weak and feeble to care for themselves and had no one else.

I went because there were people in need of help. I realize that you didn't know ANY of that. But as always, you pull you conclusions out of thin air and say I have no compassion.

Pity.

 

[water]

Who ever said I had no compassion, besides you just now?

It was precisely your lack of compassion, Water, that got us off to the wrong start. Remember your statements about the victims of the WTC collapse? It was that lack of compassion on your part for the families and loved ones left behind that caused me to say that you didn't seem to be someone I'd like to know.

In the area where I live and among the people who actually know me (which you do not) I'm well known for being a very compassionate individual. For example, did you go to New Orleans (twice, at your own expense) to hand out bottled water, diapers, apply bandages to minor wounds, help console those who needed it, and all the rest of that? I went twice for three days each. Drove over 350 miles each way and did not sleep a single wink until I got back home three days later. (Hardly bothered to eat, either, because there wasn't much to go around.)

I held infants while feeding them because the mothers were too exhausted to do it every time. Changed diapers on adults because they were too weak and feeble to care for themselves and had no one else.

I went because there were people in need of help. I realize that you didn't know ANY of that. But as always, you pull you conclusions out of thin air and say I have no compassion.

Pity.

What you don't understand, must be wrong ... right?

You have no compassion for me.
You act like a vulture, picking on me.

 

[c20H25N3o]

Water,

Are you saying in that it is possible for the person being raped to have enough self control to remain detached from the physical experience and intentions of the rapist / abuser ? Could they then use the same self control to try and actually enjoy the experience? Why not try and turn the rape into a positive rather than just neutralising it? Why stop at neutralising it?

EDIT: If a rapist can argue that the person they raped enjoyed it then it would no longer be rape. If we persuade women to change their thoughts and in turn make a rape a positive experience then surely we should consider 'rape' to be a positive thing. With this in mind perhaps we should legalise it? If you think neutralising it is as far as you can accept, does that not lend itself to an argument for decriminalising rape ?

peace

c20

 

[Jenyar]

The problem is that you and other self-proclaimed specialists for the human psyche are so self-absorbed and so shallow that you seek out only the symptoms which confirm your assumptions, but neglect other symptoms that go against your assumptions.
You have stopped listening to me long ago, and so has Jenyar.

That's not true. In many senses people may have broken off contact with you (whether by carefully modifying their responses to you, or simply ignoring you), but that's what you ask them to do. You asked Light to leave, you asked me to stop contacting you, and you often alienate others you have differences with through insults or verbal abuse. I don't mind being called a self-proclaimed specialist or self-absorbed - I've been accused of worse things - but I have consulted with counsellors and professionals about the best way to behave. I just don't know whether you have. You see, the specifics of our communication with you actually isn't that all-important - I shouldn't have to worry whether every single word I say might have an almost magical detrimental effect on you - since you can doubt even the carefully chosen words of a well-respected professional if you were inclined to.

You have to be honest: are you really the only authority about what care and compassion should look like? Can Light, or anyone's, attitude really force you to react in a way you don't like, can our suspected intentions really leave you no choice about the conclusions you must reach from our words? It's just as easy for you to criticize someone's character as it is for someone to criticize yours, but it's just as easy for you to be wrong about them as it is for them to be wrong about you. It doesn't have to be an eye for an eye, black or white; there are options.

You say you "don't cling to your perceived identity" - but the danger is that you cling to it selectively. When others are to blame, you are content to be the victim, but when they are to be forgiven, heard out, their mistakes tolerated, you are the perfectionist. I have sometimes assessed your situation wrongly, but I have also often been right - the same goes for Light, Gendanken, Kotoko, and almost everyone on these forums (and others). Some have only judged or criticized, but some also showed genuine interest and cared.

As if it weren't difficult enough that I have to deal with my problems, I also have to deal with other people's lack of wisdom and lack of compassion.

I honestly think you are inadvertently making it harder for yourself by reacting against people the way you do. For instance, when someone makes an accurate observation, you say it comes from an attitude of "perfection" (does that mean you agree that it's close to the truth?) - but instead of engaging the statement (as you expect other people to do with your own posts) you engage the person as a perfectionist or something "worse". It makes your posts confusing, because you claim consistency and method, but you make no effort to (or don't seem to) exercize consistency and methodology in the same way you describe them. You make yourself guilty of the same judgement-from-perfection that you accuse others of. By whose standards do we lack of wisdom and compassion?

On the one side you expect people to be perfect professionals when they approach you, when on the other side these are the very same credentials that would immediately disqualify someone from saying anything to you. Could you propose a way of bridging this communication gap, thereby breaking the cycle of abuse (which often manifests as mudslinging contests)?

I'll try to answer your other questions as impersonally as possible, because that's how I intended my post.

 

[Jenyar]

The wrong that you think that you have done to me may not be the same wrong that I think that you have done to me.

If you rape me, I will press charges against you, whatever options the law gives me.
But I will try my best to not identify with the act of rape, and with whatever your intentions and words were.

The sprit of the rape victim and the spirit of the rapist can remain different. That's why defense and recovery lies fundamentally at a spiritual level. The victim's spirit does not have to bend to the abuser's. Am I correct that this is also what you're saying, water? The "power struggle" might be lost by the victim if she is overpowered, but the victory does not have to belong to the perpetrator.

* * *

My "philosophy" is not "mind over matter", this phrasing is simplified and skewed.

This is how I interpreted your argument:

Instead of basing our interaction on a perceived necessity, we can base it on decisions made by the application of free will.

What this takes away from life is the things-that-go-without-saying though. Instead of taking things for granted, all would have to be a matter of an explicit agreement.​

Free will is a matter of applying your mind to your circumstances, even if the physical environment (the "matter") leaves very little, maybe even no "freedom". Our circumstances are the "perceived necessity", arguing for an instinctive if-then reaction, but instead we opt to interact on a different level - contrary to what circumstance dictates, maybe even contrary to our nature. (I also pointed out that in your example, even "pressing charges" takes something for granted). If this is not the case, please correct me.

Read the whole paragraph where I said that

If your quote cannot be taken at face value, you'll have to explain it.

Are you making these assumptions just to see how I would respond to them?

Did you or did you not [post=891777]say[/post] that Light espoused "the attitude of we are all by default responsible for eachother" and "we need others in order to be happy and safe", which you then explained: "it forces on people to be weak, it makes people understand themselves as more insecure, more weak, more dependent on others" - a bad philosophy, which you call "codependency", that creates victims, and something that only ignorant people hold onto. You refer to another thread, where Light actually [post=879485]called this particular definition inaccurate[/post]. (In response of which I [post=885983]proposed[/post] an alternative wording). But nevertheless, Light is painted as someone who encourages this philosophy, therefore as someone who perpetrates this particular abuse.

I haven't made one assumption in all of this that I'm aware of. If this is an assumption, I would like to see what a grounded argument looks like. But you don't have to respond - the above information was only a point of reference for my question.

My health comes before other people's egos. This means that I will defend myself.
I don't approve of the way I have reacted towards Light, but in the given situation, there was no positive outcome for me anyway.
He has, already in the other thread, decided to not respect me, and has continued this attitude here. He seeks unilateral approval; he wants me to approve of him, while he refuses to approve of me. So it has been between us since the beginning.

If I weren't still under the influence of my older training, I would not have communicated with him here at all; I would have left him alone from his first post on where he said I am not someone he would want to know.

Unfortunately for those who cling on to the other person being consistent, I am a person in "transition"; so some of my behaviours are still from the older set, and some are already from the new set. I apologize, but so it is.

This covers your own viewpoint, for which you don't have to apologize. But my question concerned Light as the victim in this case. (Light, I hope you don't mind being the guinea pig in this experiment!) We already know the accusations levelled against him. I want to know how he should respond (whether the accusations are true or not) - if he manages not to feel abused (and you proposed that the victim determines this), does he still have to modify his behaviour?

To put this in a human rights context: can guilt be assigned without right and wrong? Is the victim the only person qualified to decide whether he has been wronged? If he decides he would be better off not being "codependent" (in the sense water uses the term) - and psychologically isolates himself not just from the perpetrators, but from all "judgement" that might treat him as a victim (thereby excluding most approaches of counselling) - would he cease to be a victim for all practical purposes except legally? In such a case, who or what is the law actually protecting, since it's now essentially a victimless crime?

Let's say Light also took water's approach, and doesn't cling to his "perceived identity". Assuming once again that there's an objective right and wrong, Light might be guilty or innocent of the charges against him (if there is no right or wrong, there can be no guilt either). If he is innocent, the charges clearly don't apply, and he won't have to feel victimized or even addresses by any accusations. If he's guilty as charged, he has two options: 1) Distance himself from the charged identity ("it's just a perceived identity") and consider himself innocent - or even regard himself as an innocent victim, if he wants the accuser to remain guilty. 2) Accept his guilt, a "weakness" which would make him responsible for changes his ways, make him accountable to the person he wronged, and perhaps even vulnerable to further accusations.

And option 2 implies acceptance of the golden rule: admitting that people do in fact and reality influence each other's happiness and safety, and that people may assume mutual accountability. The law then effectively creates "victims" and "criminals", because we would not have known which we were if there was no objective measurement. And with that comes the expectance that others would operate under the same standard of "guilt when guilty" and "innocent when innocent", so that our identity will be in proportion to our thoughts and actions - not just in our own minds, but in truth. Truth leaves little room for "shells" or "masks", since it exposes both good and bad in us. It's what allows us to really become who we choose to be, like seeds emerging through layers of soil around us, instead of being who we wish to be or pretend to be.

Personally, I don't think that can be done directly; I think those invalid associations are exposed and severed as a side-product of other processes. I don't have insight into the whole reasoning behind recovery therapy, but professional psychology has done a lot in this field, and I think they can be very good at it.

Quite so. Cognitive behavioural therapy has been quite effective in this field. However, it is severely inhibited without "unprofessional" support structures and plain human interaction. Knowledge (self-knowledge in this case) has a ceiling in experience. A patient in isolation will never find out who he is even with the most advanced techniques of psychotherapy. I don't want to distinguish between physical, mental and spiritual isolation now, but one's identity intersects all these areas. One may be developed and others neglected, delaying integration.

I can imagine some victims are like that, yes. I don't assume to know their motivations.

But I've only described some motivations, not any victims.

Of course, such things happen all the time.

And where does this leave "explicit agreement"? The victim's health and sanity then depends on explicit disagreement. But that requires a rational belief of how things should be. You've rightly discarded irrational beliefs as counterproductive, but without any beliefs, one is left with bare associations and misassociations (like the "good girl" image that is associated with being a victim, which in turn means what is "good" becomes the opposite of being a "good girl" - and so definitions and identities become confused).

Admitting that one is a victim, is only the first step on the way. It is not something to continually dwell on. If you can do something about the abuse, do so; if there is nothing you could do about it, then make your best efforts to not let it define you.

But the admission phase involves much more than the simple affirmation. For a many, thinking about being a victim for even a few seconds constitutes "dwelling on it", and it is quickly repressed and never properly dealt with. The result is that it keeps resurfacing in a "repressed" (i.e. indirect) form elsewhere until that phase is complete. This is why professionals are called professionals: they aren't easily fooled as to when someone has in fact done what is needed.

And there is always something you can do about it. Not changing from victim to survivor to victor is to let it define you. I'm reminded of a quote (the person attributed it to Einstein, but I couldn't verify it): "Whenever you think the problem is outside you, that thinking is your problem".

I don't see where you are aiming with this.

Its meaning doesn't depend on where I'm aiming with it. Do you mean you don't understand what I said?

 

[water]

c20H25N3o,

Are you saying in that it is possible for the person being raped to have enough self control to remain detached from the physical experience and intentions of the rapist / abuser ?

Yes. This is exactly what a rape victim has to do afterwards to overcome the negative effects.

Could they then use the same self control to try and actually enjoy the experience?

Technically, yes.

Why not try and turn the rape into a positive rather than just neutralising it? Why stop at neutralising it?

I think such is possible. The question is whether more suffering is created that way.

EDIT: If a rapist can argue that the person they raped enjoyed it then it would no longer be rape.

Yes.

If we persuade women to change their thoughts and in turn make a rape a positive experience then surely we should consider 'rape' to be a positive thing. With this in mind perhaps we should legalise it? If you think neutralising it is as far as you can accept, does that not lend itself to an argument for decriminalising rape ?

Not at all. The problem with applying free will and independence is that a person stops blindly clinging to whatever they have been conditioned into believing. It may be a horrible thing to find yourself in the void and define your standards from scratch.

Unless one believes in God, karma or some all-overarching moral principle, morality and all standards are completely relative; and a thing like rape (or any crime) cannot be justified as a crime without them.


* * *


Jenyar,

That's not true. In many senses people may have broken off contact with you (whether by carefully modifying their responses to you, or simply ignoring you), but that's what you ask them to do. You asked Light to leave, you asked me to stop contacting you, and you often alienate others you have differences with with insults or abuse. I don't mind being called a self-proclaimed specialist or self-absorbed - I've been accused of worse things - but I have consulted with counsellors and professionals about the best way to behave.

And they told you to play therapist to me, for more than nine months? They told you to treat me like a schoolgirl and give your assumptions priority over what I say?

You see, the specifics of our communication with you actually isn't so all-important - I shouldn't have to worry whether every single word I say might have an almost magical detrimental effect on you -

since you can doubt even the words of a well-respected professional if you were inclined to.

Of course you shouldn't have to "worry" about every word you say to me -- but not for the reason you mention.

I don't know how a person can be so mindless and so careless so as to continue in an ill communication for over nine months, getting nowhere -- and think that what they are doing is right and good.

You have to be honest: are you really the only authority about what care and compassion should look like?

For me, yes. If it is causing me harm, then it is not good for me.

Can Light, or anyone's, attitude really force you to react in a way you don't like,

No. But I must also protect myself from other people's poison.

can our words really leave you no choice about the conclusions you must reach from them?

What conclusions?

It's just as easy for you to criticize someone's character as it is for someone to criticize yours, but it's just as easy for you to be wrong about them as it is for them to be wrong about you.

Of course.

It doesn't have to be an eye for an eye.

But it is. People are mostly not willing to cooperate, esp. not at this forum. Here, it is mostly just competition about who is going to outsmarten, or outanalyze or outscold someone. This place tends to inflate one's ego terribly. Company is stronger than will-power, after all.

You say you "don't cling to your perceived identity" - but the danger is that you cling to it selectively.

You don't know what I think of my identity.

When other are to blame, you are content to be the victim, but when they are to be forgiven, heard out, their mistakes tolerated, you are the perfectionist.

I'm not the victim. I have a clumsy way of asserting myself, I apologize. I haven't worked through all my material yet, and assertiveness is up on schedule sometime soon. I can't do everything at once.

I have sometimes assesses your situation wrongly, but I have also been right - the same goes for Light, Gendanken, Kotoko, and almost everyone on these forums. Some have only judged or criticized, but some also cared.

So? Intentions make the greatest difference. Someone can make a perfectly good assessment of a person, but if he does so to denigrate the person, if he is guided by greed, hatred and delusion, then I don't agree those are the right intentions for doing something.

As if it weren't difficult enough that I have to deal with my problems, I also have to deal with other people's lack of wisdom and lack of compassion.

I honestly think you are inadvertently making it harder for yourself by reacting against people the way you do.

I have to protect myself from "helpers". There are people who have the compulsive need to be needed, and they will seek out someone whom they perceive to "need" their help, and "help" them, without asking them anything. Such "helpers" only add to the person's problems.

The trouble is that a person that has been brought down by circumstances, isn't likely to be able to act on the principle "If someone doesn't help you, don't look for ways to add them to your problems."

For instance, when someone makes an accurate observation, you say it comes from an attitude of "perfection" (does that mean you agree that it's close to the truth?)

- but instead of engaging the statement (as you expect other people to do with your own posts) you engage the person as a perfectionist or something "worse".

I think you are observing very selectively. You are ignoring all the times when I agree, and I aggree many times.

It makes your posts confusing, because you claim consistency and method,

I DO NOT CLAIM CONSISTENCY. Just in my previous post, I apologized for my apparent inconsistencies. And I have brought this up seveal times before.

but you make no effort to (or don't seem to) exercize consistency and methodology in the same way you describe them. You make yourself guilty of the same judgement-from-perfection that you accuse others of.

I'm learning. I intuitively, deliberatley create a messy situation; it's strange that this can be done, it tells a lot about how little people can control themselves. Throw a bone, and they grab it like vultures.

By whose standards do we lack of wisdom and compassion?

Mine. And many other people's I have spoken to.

On the one side you expect people to be perfect professionals when they approach you,

Not at all. I want only professionals to be professional.

when on the other side this is the very same credential that would immediately disqualify someone from saying anything to you.

What do you mean? Light is a dilettante with no professional ethics. He, a theoretical psychologist, posted his psychological assessments of me without me requesting that, and without asking me for permission.

Could you propose a way of bridging this communication gap, thereby breaking the cycle of abuse (which often manifests in mudslinging contests between people).

Simply strive to be mindful and strive not to act on ill will, to say the least. Be in the clear about your intentions for saying and doing something. State them. Understand that you don't see into the other person's head. Don't think you can analyze everyone and that such analyses are automatically welcome.

The abuse that is happening at this forum is greatly due to egos fighting, each too proud to admit they have made mistakes.

So often, I have apologized, admitted mistakes -- but this seems to get by unnoticed, except by a few.

I too, am guilty of analysing people, but for some reason, I have always felt it is a wrong thing to. But, to go along with the spirit of this forum, I'd do what I hated as well. Had I been an indistinguishable pulsating pink blot of loving-kindness, no one would care for me here.

 

[c20H25N3o]

Water: I think you are actually talking around the subject of forgiveness without realising it. The trouble is you cannot forgive unless you recognise the transgression and this seems something that you are furvently against as it appears to lend the transgression further negative power.

If I am wrong please explain why?

thanks

c20

 

[Jenyar]

Simply strive to be mindful and strive not to act on ill will, to say the least. Be in the clear about your intentions for saying and doing something. State them. Understand that you don't see into the other person's head. Don't think you can analyze everyone and that such analyses are automatically welcome.

We don't assume our comments will always be welcome. That doesn't mean we act on ill will - speaking of assumptions: this is your assumption. Are you saying we should only say something if we are sure you will like it?

I, for one, have made my intention clear as far as I was able. Were you content with my declarations of intent?

So often, I have apologized, admitted mistakes -- but this seems to get by unnoticed, except by a few.

Of course they are noticed. But they don't give you the license to be abusive. Can you understand this?

I too, am guilty of analysing people, but for some reason, I have always felt it is a wrong thing to. But, to go along with the spirit of this forum, I'd do what I hated as well. Had I been an indistinguishable pulsating pink blot of loving-kindness, no one would care for me here.

Do you want to be true to yourself, or do you want to be someone people care for here? At the moment you seem to be compromising on both, and achieving neither.