NuevaVida
Posts: 6707
Joined: 8/5/2008 Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: NihilusZero quote:
ORIGINAL: NuevaVida When I love, I love deeply and fully, and not allowing me to express that would be a form of stifling me. Like being unable to touch the person you feel that way about because they are on a trip is "stifling". Handfuls of circumstances can be "stifling", and that's not even getting into a punishment dynamic where there are numerous ways in the means by which the s-type can express it are curbed. I can't tell if you're agreeing, disagreeing, or simply adding further thoughts. I do believe, however, when you remove one's primary source of communication from someone (in my case, words), said person is forced to find other means with which to communicate. It is an interesting practice, no doubt. When doing so without explanation, it adds confusion to the lesson, and complicates it. Rather than focusing on other ways to communicate, one is also burdened with wondering why this is happening and if there is an end in sight. I don't believe the practice of confusing such lessons is as efficient and effective as they otherwise could be. quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: NuevaVida Or, the person can learn to do both. I was periodically required to answer questions just like these for him, in detail. Why did I love him? Why did I love belonging to him? What did his mastery over me mean to me? What did it mean to me, to be his slave? And so on. Doing "both" only makes sense once the use of the phrase is preceded by an explanation of feelings without it. "Love" is an empty word. When spoken (to aply an analogy leadership527 has used on other topics before) each person fills the word with money in their own currency. The hope, of course, is that the person receiving it pay for their own thoughts and emotions in the same currency. Essentially, it is a word that means nothing until the person saying it explains what it does mean. And if we have not yet explained to our partner what the use of the phrase means to us when we use it, then what exactly are we telling them? This is where people can get tripped up. This is why books such as "The Five Love Languages" (Gary Chapman) were written. Because people don't effectively communicate what they mean. I agree with you, that people are better for understanding what their partners mean when communicating. Perhaps in the case of the OP, if she was told why she was stifled from expressing her love verbally, even if just to say "I am removing these words so you can think on their meaning and on how your other behaviors communicate what you might feel", she would not be so bogged down with confusion, resentment, and angst. A directionless punishment/lesson can be about as effective as an empty "I love you." quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: NuevaVida I didn't need to stifle saying "I love you" to learn the answer to the other questions. Nor do you desperately need to be able to speak it for it to be true (and, in your example, you didn't have to because your former Master actually took the time to force you into introspection about it). Mute folks, I'm sure, have certainly had no greater problems loving than the rest of the human populace. Mute folks are not intentionally suddenly gagged without explanation. I agree there are a multitude of ways to communicate, and if one is unable to in one form, then they are pushed to seek other forms. But an intentional, unexplained stifling is different than a physical inability which one has lived with over time.
_____________________________
Live Simply. Love Generously. Care Deeply. Speak Kindly.
|