RE: Subtle Abuse (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion



Message

NuevaVida -> RE: Subtle Abuse (12/26/2008 11:21:31 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster

NuevaVida,

First, you're also getting heated about this.  I wasn't being sarcastic to YOU--I was being sarcastic to the people who were "helping" me by taking the liberty of sending me links in private e-mail on the other side.  That should have been clear.  And the people I told to grow up were the people who are responding to me as though I'm condoning abuse.


Actually, LAM, I'm  not feeling heated at all.  And you're right - no clue here who you were talking about with your "helpful" post.  Perhaps it was my misunderstanding.

quote:


Second, I SAID intimidation is abuse.  Really, people seem to be having a hard time reading what I say and not imagining that I'm saying something else.  What's wrong with listing things like criticism, yelling, slamming doors, and breaking promises, as examples of abusive behavior is precisely that it's all insufficiently contextualized; they all COULD accompany abuse, but, be honest, more often they don't.  I've broken promises; I've yelled; I've slammed doors.  And yet you'll never find anyone who has ever been intimate with me who will tell you that I'm an abuser.  (Asshole, maybe, but not abuser.)  Really, show me someone who has never broken promises, yelled, or slammed doors.

But, you see, we also said these behaviors were abusive depending on the context.  That was something you did not address, and likely is where the breakdown in understanding occurred.  Of course we've all done those things (yelled, etc.).  It is when we continually repeat and do so intending to intimidate that abuse occurs.  All you have been saying is, "It's not abuse."  How else could we respond to that??

quote:


Third, you know, I have to point out, that I still don't see where your links demonstrate the claim that touched all this off: that abusers begin by breaking inanimate objects and move on to harming people.  THAT'S what I was objecting to.  I never said that abusers don't intimidate their victims, or that abuse isn't really so bad, or any of the other crap that people are putting in my mouth.  To be honest, you've done some of it in this thread too.  Take your link from womansdivorce.com (http://www.womansdivorce.com/psychological-emotional-abuse.html); where does that say anything about breaking inanimate objects?  It just states how serious emotional abuse can be--as though I were some kind of caveman who needed to be told this.

Fourth, this time I really am done with this subject, and all the womansdivorce.com websites in the world aren't going to make too much of an impression on me.  So people, save your effort and stop sending me links on the other side.  And stop following me onto other threads.

Don't worry, I'm done with the links.  But you asked for the info, and you changed what info you were asking for, and now you seem frustrated that someone posted what you asked for.  I walk away from this thoroughly confused by you, but no problem.  I'll chalk it up to poor communication and leave it at that.  I think I see where you're coming from now, but quite honestly, you kinda took the scenic route to get there.



GreedyTop -> RE: Subtle Abuse (12/26/2008 11:22:19 PM)

LAM... in the other thread, I believe that I gave first hand experience of having 2 abusive exes who sstarted out by destroying inanimate objects.  Several others who have been in abusive realtionships did the same.  You do NOT seriously think that we are all just abberations in this, do you?

And frankly, no, it was NOT clear.. what you posted DID seem aimed NV, Lockit, etc.



Lordandmaster -> RE: Subtle Abuse (12/26/2008 11:34:36 PM)

Yeah, well, the first problem is that the discussion started on a different thread (where I said I was done) and then was resurrected here.  So there's a lot that is being taken out of context, and there are all kinds of hot and heavy emotions that are short-circuiting discussion.  (Where did I ever insult Lockit, for example?  I disagreed with what she said; I never said anything about her as a person.)

The point that the context and intent of someone's actions are crucial in determining whether they are abusive was made clearly in that earlier thread.  LaTigresse had a good comment about it.  Anyone who is interested can go and find it, though I doubt many people will.

And good night.

quote:

ORIGINAL: NuevaVida

quote:


Second, I SAID intimidation is abuse.  Really, people seem to be having a hard time reading what I say and not imagining that I'm saying something else.  What's wrong with listing things like criticism, yelling, slamming doors, and breaking promises, as examples of abusive behavior is precisely that it's all insufficiently contextualized; they all COULD accompany abuse, but, be honest, more often they don't.  I've broken promises; I've yelled; I've slammed doors.  And yet you'll never find anyone who has ever been intimate with me who will tell you that I'm an abuser.  (Asshole, maybe, but not abuser.)  Really, show me someone who has never broken promises, yelled, or slammed doors.

But, you see, we also said these behaviors were abusive depending on the context.  That was something you did not address, and likely is where the breakdown in understanding occurred.  Of course we've all done those things (yelled, etc.).  It is when we continually repeat and do so intending to intimidate that abuse occurs.  All you have been saying is, "It's not abuse."  How else could we respond to that??



LadyPact -> RE: Subtle Abuse (12/26/2008 11:36:29 PM)

To follow on what GT said, I'd like to make a particular point.

The information that we have today about abuse and patterns leading to abuse are because of people researching the subject by talking to the people who have experienced it.  That's how the knowledge is compiled in the first place.  It's by people participating in studies, intake evaluations, and other sources.  It comes from data collected on a case by case basis about what people have been through, what they have done, and how it effected them.  The trends that are identified in these situations are found because, as each person is willing to talk, the more we learn and the more we know. 

In fact, I'd also like to thank the folks who weren't quick to agree with the majority opinion on what does prove to be abuse and what doesn't.  I highly doubt the thread would have gone on as long and so much information provided if there wasn't some descent.



NuevaVida -> RE: Subtle Abuse (12/26/2008 11:39:43 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster

Yeah, well, the first problem is that the discussion started on a different thread (where I said I was done) and then was resurrected here.  So there's a lot that is being taken out of context, and there are all kinds of hot and heavy emotions that are short-circuiting discussion.  (Where did I ever insult Lockit, for example?  I disagreed with what she said; I never said anything about her as a person.)

The point that the context and intent of someone's actions are crucial in determining whether they are abusive was made clearly in that earlier thread.  LaTigresse had a good comment about it.  Anyone who is interested can go and find it, though I doubt many people will.

And good night.



Often times a concept is brought from one thread into another.  That particular thread was all about a guy wanting his girl back.  Once it was clear he was emotionally abusive, the concept was taken to this thread, here.

And my original post on this thread - Post #39 - outlined context.

Goodnight back atcha.  [;)]



stella41b -> RE: Subtle Abuse (12/26/2008 11:47:04 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster

Rape is abuse. Intimidation is abuse. Sexual assault is abuse. Threatening to harm family and friends is abuse. I don't think we're going to disagree about any of those.

But I'm sorry, criticism is not abuse. Yelling is not abuse. Silent treatment is not abuse. Slammed doors are not abuse. Broken promises are not abuse. Maybe you don't like them, but they're not abuse. The most you can say about the things in this category is that they often accompany abuse--but often enough they don't. In fact, they usually don't. What relationship doesn't have yelling and criticism? By those criteria, EVERYONE is an abuser. That's ridiculous and only undermines the credibility of the National Coalition against Domestic Violence, as laudable as their mission is. Even worse, it trivializes real abuse.

What would be much more useful than a subjective "fact sheet" indiscriminately labeling all kinds of things as "abuse" would be a pamphlet outlining the pertinent LAWS and the options available to women who feel threatened. That would do a world of good. Some people on here have taken the extremely childish attitude that because I'm challenging the supposedly well-documented link between breaking things and abusing people, I must be condoning abuse or I must be a moron. Come on people, grow up.



LaM I don't know how it is in the States but here in the UK if you were to do any of those things I've bolded in any public building or government office you would be immediately removed or the police would be called and you would be arrested.

quote:


BE IT ENACTED by the Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:–

[4A Intentional harassment, alarm or distress]

[(1) A person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress, he—

(a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or

(b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,

thereby causing that or another person harassment, alarm or distress.

(2) An offence under this section may be committed in a public or a private place, except that no offence is committed where the words or behaviour are used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation is displayed, by a person inside a dwelling and the person who is harassed, alarmed or distressed is also inside that or another dwelling.

(3) It is a defence for the accused to prove—

(a) that he was inside a dwelling and had no reason to believe that the words or behaviour used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation displayed, would be heard or seen by a person outside that or any other dwelling, or

(b) that his conduct was reasonable.

(4) A constable may arrest without warrant anyone he reasonably suspects is committing an offence under this section.

(5) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or both.]


This is taken from The Public Order Act 1986.

Then we have the Protection from Harassment Act 1997

Section 1: (England and Wales)

quote:


1 Prohibition of harassment

(1) A person must not pursue a course of conduct—

(a) which amounts to harassment of another, and

(b) which he knows or ought to know amounts to harassment of the other.

(2) For the purposes of this section, the person whose course of conduct is in question ought to know that it amounts to harassment of another if a reasonable person in possession of the same information would think the course of conduct amounted to harassment of the other.

(3) Subsection (1) does not apply to a course of conduct if the person who pursued it shows—

(a) that it was pursued for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime,

(b) that it was pursued under any enactment or rule of law or to comply with any condition or requirement imposed by any person under any enactment, or

(c) that in the particular circumstances the pursuit of the course of conduct was reasonable.


Section 4 - England and Wales

quote:


Putting people in fear of violence

(1) A person whose course of conduct causes another to fear, on at least two occasions, that violence will be used against him is guilty of an offence if he knows or ought to know that his course of conduct will cause the other so to fear on each of those occasions.

(2) For the purposes of this section, the person whose course of conduct is in question ought to know that it will cause another to fear that violence will be used against him on any occasion if a reasonable person in possession of the same information would think the course of conduct would cause the other so to fear on that occasion.

(3) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to show that—

(a) his course of conduct was pursued for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime,

(b) his course of conduct was pursued under any enactment or rule of law or to comply with any condition or requirement imposed by any person under any enactment, or

(c) the pursuit of his course of conduct was reasonable for the protection of himself or another or for the protection of his or another’s property.

(4) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—

(a) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years, or a fine, or both, or

(b) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or both.

(5) If on the trial on indictment of a person charged with an offence under this section the jury find him not guilty of the offence charged, they may find him guilty of an offence under section 2.

(6) The Crown Court has the same powers and duties in relation to a person who is by virtue of subsection (5) convicted before it of an offence under section 2 as a magistrates' court would have on convicting him of the offence.


Section 8 - Scotland

quote:


8 Harassment

(1) Every individual has a right to be free from harassment and, accordingly, a person must not pursue a course of conduct which amounts to harassment of another and—

(a) is intended to amount to harassment of that person; or

(b) occurs in circumstances where it would appear to a reasonable person that it would amount to harassment of that person.

(2) An actual or apprehended breach of subsection (1) may be the subject of a claim in civil proceedings by the person who is or may be the victim of the course of conduct in question; and any such claim shall be known as an action of harassment.

(3) For the purposes of this section—

*

“conduct” includes speech;
*

“harassment” of a person includes causing the person alarm or distress; and

a course of conduct must involve conduct on at least two occasions.

(4) It shall be a defence to any action of harassment to show that the course of conduct complained of—

(a) was authorised by, under or by virtue of any enactment or rule of law;

(b) was pursued for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime; or

(c) was, in the particular circumstances, reasonable.

(5) In an action of harassment the court may, without prejudice to any other remedies which it may grant—

(a) award damages;

(b) grant—

(i) interdict or interim interdict;

(ii) if it is satisfied that it is appropriate for it to do so in order to protect the person from further harassment, an order, to be known as a “non-harassment order”, requiring the defender to refrain from such conduct in relation to the pursuer as may be specified in the order for such period (which includes an indeterminate period) as may be so specified,

but a person may not be subjected to the same prohibitions in an interdict or interim interdict and a non-harassment order at the same time.

(6) The damages which may be awarded in an action of harassment include damages for any anxiety caused by the harassment and any financial loss resulting from it.

(7) Without prejudice to any right to seek review of any interlocutor, a person against whom a non-harassment order has been made, or the person for whose protection the order was made, may apply to the court by which the order was made for revocation of or a variation of the order and, on any such application, the court may revoke the order or vary it in such manner as it considers appropriate.

(8) In section 10(1) of the [1976 c. 13.] Damages (Scotland) Act 1976 (interpretation), in the definition of “personal injuries”, after “to reputation” there is inserted “, or injury resulting from harassment actionable under section 8 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997”.


The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 further categorizes offences into 'recordable offences', 'imprisonable offences', 'arrestable offences' and 'serious arrestable offences'. Consider that there are offences such as harassment, threatening behaviour likely to cause breach of the peace, threatening conduct, and others in addition to the above offences.

This isn't a 'subjective fact sheet'. This is the law, no doubt on which many of those 'subjective fact sheets' are based.

All quoted sections of this posting are protected under Crown Copyright. HMSO.



MadRabbit -> RE: Subtle Abuse (12/27/2008 6:23:30 AM)

I think people with sadistic compulsions and tendacies should avoid practicing consenual S/M because it only reinforces sadistic behavior and will eventually lead to the kidnapping and torture of an innocent victim.




beargonewild -> RE: Subtle Abuse (12/27/2008 6:44:45 AM)

And selective patronization is alive and well here also. 



MadRabbit -> RE: Subtle Abuse (12/27/2008 7:04:49 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: beargonewild

And selective patronization is alive and well here also.


Not at all. My intent wasn't to patronize the group, but to make an analogy for the purposes of perspective.

I tend to agree with LAM to some degree and I am also someone who doesn't believe every psychology article from an official looking website with a link attached to it. I've read a whole assortment of interesting psyche articles over the years ranging from reducing kinks to a form of mental illness to one's published by Christian sources that suggest techniques for curing the homosexual disease.

Unfortunately, from where I sit, the correlation between breaking a plate in the garage and physically beating your wife is nothing short of a weak one, because of just common sense and logic. Does the correlation exist? In some cases, I am sure it does, but to call it a fact that can't be challenged is discredited by a whole host of examples.

Would the same people making this claim also advocate avoiding consensual S/M when one has sadistic compulsions? Logically, consensual S/M would reinforce sadistic behavior leading to the inevitable next step of torturing an innocent victim?

How about age play? Logically, this would reinforce <CENSORED> desires and result in escalation to fucking a <CENSORED>.

Should marijuana be avoided because it will serve as a gateway drug to heroine?

Should we discourage young people from engaging in oral sex? Sure, it can provide an outlet for sexual desires as an alternative to vaginal intercourse, resulting in lower numbers of pregnancy, but following the logic here, it would simply reinforce sexual desires and lead to the next step.

I'm certain there is some cases out there where maybe breaking a plate led to beating a wife, but I certainly question how people came to that conclusion, because from where I sit, the only way is selective confirmation. The breaking of a plate proceeded the beating of the wife so therefore it must have contributed to the beating of the wife. Unfortunately, that logic doesn't pan out either if we apply it to other scenarios. If I took cough drops a few days before my cancer remission, then obviously the cancer remission was caused by the cough drops since they proceeded the cancer remission.

Edited to Add : With all that said, I would personally avoid using breaking of objects or beating a punching bag as a coping techinque unless one didn't have any choice. As someone who has been working to develop good anger management techinques over the last year, it can be effective, but if you don't learn to deal with anger, frustrating, and angst before it builds up to the breaking point, eventually you will run into a scenario where you are overwhelmed and unable to detach yourself from the scenario in order to break a plate to vent and will end up beating your wife or doing something you regret.

The best method I have found is that you have to be self aware and once you feel the fire start to course through your veins, you have to step away immediately, force yourself to think, and figure out what is making you angry and find constructive ways to deal with that.

If you need to break a plate or punch something to vent, then you've allowed the anger to build up to an unhealthy level.

But if someone were to suggest that harming inanimate objects would nurture me into a wife beater, I would probably laugh in their face. Before I had better anger management techinques, a whole host of empty cardboard boxes and soccer balls have felt my wrath, but I have never ever ever hit a woman in anger. It's a major moral code with me and it would take a LOT for me to break it in an emotional state.



WinsomeDefiance -> RE: Subtle Abuse (12/27/2008 7:44:52 AM)

(sighs) subtle abuse is just that.  Most anyone , if they woke up one day and their significant other was suddenly grabbing them by the throat and holding a butcher knife over them and threatening to kill them - all over the unforgiveable indiscretion of serving hot dogs for dinner - would haul ass and run as fast as possible.

No, one doesn't just wake up one day to a sudden abusive partner.  It is a subtle, chipping away at the individuality and independence of another.  It does take place over time.  A raised voice of disapproval.  A broken plate.  A hole in the wall.  Persistent subtle undermining of ones self-worth.  It isn't just someone losing their temper.  Tempers get lost all over the world, and those who lose them don't all become abusers.  Plates get broken.  Property gets demolished, but when it comes to subtle abuse - there's a discernable pattern.  A documented pattern, that anyone who wants to do the research can learn for themselves. 

I don't think that having anger control issues is an indication that a person is an abuser or potential abuser.  Unfortunately, the indicators of abuse tend to take place over a long period of time, and because of the nature of the beast - abused victims are often so emeshed in their own patterns of protecting their very abusers, that it isn't always evident even to those closest to them.

Nothing saddens me more, than to hear someone say 'I would never allow anyone to do that to me."  Not becuase I have any desire for anyone to be victimized, but because it is truly a statement made from ignorance and shows how little people really do know about the campaign of terror that individuals across the nation/world face in their homes.  No one but the individual knows the truth about what harm was done to them, by the person they loved. 

No, you don't wake up one day and find yourself abused, and no one who hasn't had their identity and resources chiseled away, who hasn't been isolated from friends and family, can really understand the how, or why because it just isn't anything that a reasonable person SHOULD be able to comprehend easily.

A broken plate does not an abuser make.  A pattern of broken plates, and busted walls, and raised voices and other intimidation tactics does.

WinD 



Kalista07 -> RE: Subtle Abuse (12/27/2008 8:09:02 AM)

Insanity is said to be doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results....... That is exactly what this thread has become to me. It has become an example of insanity. Let's face it those of us with professional and personal experience know that the cycle of violence is just that a cycle....We also know in many cases (sure not all..But many!!!!) before a woman (or person) is ever degraded or assaulted a plate (glass, dish, remote, dog, etc) goes flying against the wall.  For me this has become not only personally but professionally frustrating to even read. Don't get me wrong, i do understand theoretically where LAM is coming from. Although, i think this entire thread (as well as a few 'emails') would have gone much simpler if he had just owned up to the fact that he doesn't like this issue and is unwilling to recognize scientific information for what it is, rather than playing stupid and saying "no one ever showed me where it's documented". i could list the thousands of families who could tell you (or him) that it all started with breaking inaminate objects...but really....what's the point? The point for me was i saw a thread and i saw what appeared to be someone who was honestly struggling with being able to comprehend some information. i did what i generally do when i see a person who has a desire to learn information....i shared my experience and provided them with a link (here and in email) to documented proof. What i received back was nothing short of cold, callous, antagonizing bullshit.
Perhaps i am just overly tired. Perhaps i am tired of people who pretend to be one thing or pretend to be one place and when push comes to shove they change their order. i don't understand this type of mentality at all.
What i can and will say, however is there is a saying that has been coming to my mind the last few pages of this thread, "me thinks he doth protest too much".
Kali



kiwisub12 -> RE: Subtle Abuse (12/27/2008 8:22:06 AM)

i agree - i think he took a position , and now is feeling as if he has to defend it.   Maybe some of the problem is that most males will never be subjected to this kind of situation, and they can't conceive of any situation where they would be. Physical strength does have its advantages.



SimplyMichael -> RE: Subtle Abuse (12/27/2008 8:43:18 AM)

THIS THREAD IS ABOUT SUBTLE ABUSE ~ NOT VIOLENT ABUSE
 
It is absolutely about context and intent.  If your actions are about intimidation, it is abuse.  That is not the same as beating the bitch because she won't shut the fuck up, an act of extreme cowardice we would all agree with.  It is about using your anger and or frustration in indirect ways to intimidate your partner. 
 
I say "her" because most abuse occurs with men intimidating women but there are plenty of women who abuse men in these same subtle ways, possibly even moreso but that is NOT the point of this thread. 
 
I had never hit a woman in anger and therefore "knew" I wasn't abusive.  Truth was that my abuse wasn't physical but it was most certainly emotional.  In fact, that was when I first knew I was into S&M.  The following is a passage I wrote about myself.
 
quote:

Wandering the halls of cyber space he ran across a room full of sick perverts who at least had some sense of what things should look like, a sense of imagery and fantasy.  Appalled at the controlling assholes, he played friend and offered many a woman a shoulder to cry on about their newest asshole or Dom as they preferred to be called.

Then one day, as a slave was bemoaning the fact that the Dom they had chosen to serve was such a control freak that he wanted to control what she work, he panicked.  Images from his own life of women he had reduced to tears, real women, over what to wear, how to dress and the exact same things these demented assholes were doing.  Fight or flight, fight or flight….he chose flight, killed the computer and vowed not to touch it again.
 
Its all about context and intent.  Back then, I made them feel like shit to try and get my way.  Now, I make them feel safe and happy and I get my way far more often.
 
I have always liked strong women but oddly enough they always ended up feeling insecure and with less self esteem after having been with me.  And what was the common denominator there?  ME.  It was my subtle grinding away on them to get my way and my needs met that did it.  I never hit them, never broke their things or any of the classic signs of abuse but the result was exactly the same.  I broke them down so they were more compliant.  BSB never believed I could be like that because she only knows me now.  That was why that letter the damn mods won't let me post was so important.  It showed that someone who is at leastly respected by a few here was once a giant fucking asshole domineering dickwad.   That that sort of subtle emotional abuse sucks for all involved.  They were made misearable by it and I didn't really get what I wanted from it.  Freed from those shackles, I am happier than I have ever been. 
 



NuevaVida -> RE: Subtle Abuse (12/27/2008 8:45:42 AM)

Hi MR,

Your post did come off as extremely patronizing, btw, whether or not that was your intent. 

I think you missed the numerous posts which outlined:

(a) The plate in question was smashed to the floor with a shouted "What the fuck??" when the guy didn't like the dinner he was served.  It was not in a garage; it was in front of her, as a direct result of something she was doing for him.

(b) Post after post of personal accounts (not the requested links which describe the psychological standards with which to describe abuse) have stated that abuse depends on context, and a history of emotional abuse tends to escalate over time. 

(c) Where you're off in your comparison to S/M, pot, oral sex, etc, is that abuse - whether physical or emotional - is an act of anger, which is a heated emotion that, when not handled properly, can be damaging and out of control.  

(d) It is said, in the field of psychology as well as in anger management classes, that people with anger management issues should NOT hit pillows, punching bags, etc.  Why?  Because doing so perpetuates the violence they use as their outlet to handling anger, and because it is too risky that they will then, once again, turn their anger on another human being.

(e)  There is so much still misunderstood about the aspects and consequences of abuse.  What I find sad are that people (mostly men, it seems) want to challenge well known information as wrong (based on their personal opinions, only), rather than try to educate themselves and understand a very touchy topic. This thread (and the other one) is a perfect example of that.  In response to what government agencies, psychological agencies, social service agencies, volunteers who work at shelters, and personal accountings have to say, we still have people saying "That's just not true...because I think it's not true" rather than saying "Hmm, this is a real problem out there and I'm not understanding it - why are all the experts and former victims saying one thing can lead to another?  I can't personally see it, but why does this appear to be a trend?"  No, instead they have used sarcasm, patronization, joke, accusations of being "heated" and "assualting", and a personal pulpit based on nothing but what is in their head.  It is a pity this could not have been a cool, educational, intellectual conversation.  I think we all could have gotten a lot more out of it.

(e) As a result, this thread turned into one of defining what abuse is and what the laws are around it, which I don't believe was the intention of the OP.  I asked in my first post (#39) and I'll ask again, wouldn't we be more productive if we tried to understand what we might be doing that causes another human being to feel emotionally/mentally/spiritually assaulted?  Wouldn't this discussion have been more fruitful if, instead of the assertive "You're wrong" comments, the opposing view expressed their concern, outlining in detail how such statements can be misused and abused and what the consequences could be?  It's a valid concern, which became lost amidst all the "I'm right, you're wrong" posturing, which added no actual information to this discussion other than to fuel argument.




SimplyMichael -> RE: Subtle Abuse (12/27/2008 8:53:52 AM)

Abuse is a continium with violence at the higher worse end, subtle abuse at the middle, and annoying boorish behavior at the low end.  We can all agree that violence is wrong and while we might dissagree on what is annoying and or boorish behavior is, we can all agree that those sort of people are, well, annoying.

Anger isn't a core emotion, it is a response.  Stub your toe, it hurts, and you have a flash of anger.  Someone cheats on you, you feel violated, and you flash to anger.  But it never goes, someone cheats on you, you feel anger, and only afterwards feel violated.  That anger is a response to that core emotion.  It is a learned response.  My father, who I love, responds to almost all core emotions with anger.  I have gotten to the point where the anger is merely annoying because in my core, I now understand that the anger is just a byproduct of some core emotion he can't talk about but if I can figure out what it is, the anger goes away. 

The point is that learning to respond in other ways than anger to the underlying trigger is how I have dealt with my own little deamons.  It has made for a vastly happier life where I get far more of what I wanted than when I used manipulation to get it.  The point of this thread wasn't to attack anyone, my house is very much made of glass and pretty cheap fragile glass at that for me to be throwing stones at anyone.  I simply wanted to get this out there as seeing my own anger, not as a healthy thing but as something to eliminate has made me a much happier man.

And I also want to point out that I don't think anger is  a bad emotion.  When that asshole grabbed BSB's arm, he got a rather large dose of anger and I would have been more than happy to break him in half.  The difference is I don't flash to that sort of anger with my partners anymore...



OrionTheWolf -> RE: Subtle Abuse (12/27/2008 9:56:02 AM)

Hiya Michael,

I understand exactly what you are talking about. It is a pattern of behavior we exhibit when we have not taught ourselves how to deal with painful or extreme emotions. It is not the violence of breaking something, or the yelling, it is the seething anger that can be seen in our face, our eyes and our body language. It is using those things to try and manipulate the person we are with, into doing something or not doing something. Often it causes frustration as they cannot read our minds, or know why we are feeling the way we are feeling. It can also be cold tones or the ability to turn cold. It all has to do with the reaction we get, and once we see that we can use it as a means of control, it seems easier than dealing with our issues and using communication to convey what we want.

It is a pattern of behavior that developes over a long period of time, and we either teach it to ourselves without knowing, or we learn it from others during our formative years.

As any pattern of behavior, it can be recognized and changed if you truly want to. I see from your posting that you recognize it, and are likely on the path of changing it. I recognized it myself many years ago, and went on a hiatus from mankind, including females. The hiatus lasted almost two years, and during that time I tried to examine all those aspects of learned behavior that I wanted to change. I read several books on Cognitive Bahvioral Therapy, mapped out my own therapy and then proceeded to do it. It was filled with a lot of false pride, admitting mistakes, and sometimes self pity but I knew in the end that if I wanted a successful relationship with people in general, I had to learn how to deal with some things better.

I still have a temper, but I express it differently and afterwards I make sure to talk to anyone that was around me, about the episode. I continue to use those episodes to learn more of myself, and to change those things.

I completely understand what you are saying, and would like to ask some questions. You can answer here or in CMail if you like. Do you ever find those patterns returning, sometimes without thought? Have you identified the triggers and stayed away from them as you work on the issues? How do you handle the self anger, when you fail in it?

To be fair, my answers are: I often find when I am more tired or more stressed that I may lapse into those patterns. I have found the triggers seem to be tied to my formative years, along with being married at the age of 18 and many of my failures there. Don't get me wrong, these are not excuses, they are triggers and issues. For the last question, I find myself closing off to others in an attempt to protect them from me, then a little self loathing, and then finally I stern talking to myself and extra determination to accept and learn from it.

Thanks for a good topic. Hopefully it can get back to the topic of subtle abuse, instead of the overt abuse that seems to consume things so quickly.

Live well,
Orion



missturbation -> RE: Subtle Abuse (12/27/2008 10:05:28 AM)

I haven't read the full thread so don't know if i'm repeating someone else. If i am apologies [:D]
 
Subtle abuse for me is in a way worse than straight out full on abuse. Why? Because subtle abuse creeps up on you. First it may start with a smashed plate, then a few harsh words, slammed doors, harsher words, throwing things at someone and before you know it has escalted into full on violent abuse. The horror of this is that it crept up on you so slowly you never really saw it coming. It is in a way controlled, escalated so as to blind side you, much more planned, plotted, scarey than out of control full on abuse. There is twisted, thought out intent behind the escalation abuser, it's horrific.



Icarys -> RE: Subtle Abuse (12/27/2008 10:49:27 AM)

Maybe the next thread could be about Victim Mentalities? Those who love it and why.



missturbation -> RE: Subtle Abuse (12/27/2008 10:59:24 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Icarys

Maybe the next thread could be about Victim Mentalities? Those who love it and why.


Already done something similar. The original op is in my journal under hysteria a theory.



Icarys -> RE: Subtle Abuse (12/27/2008 11:02:22 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: missturbation

quote:

ORIGINAL: Icarys

Maybe the next thread could be about Victim Mentalities? Those who love it and why.


Already done something similar. The original op is in my journal under hysteria a theory.

I'm not sure that's the same thing. Thanks anyway.



Page: <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
6.054688E-02