SusanofO
Posts: 5672
Joined: 12/19/2005 Status: offline
|
marie: Yes, you can enjoy something you don't enjoy (where are the married CM members? joke). Seriously, I think the example of addictions serves very well to illustrate this - although I've read some things (mostly by former drug and booze addicts) that do point out that for some, usually at the far end of their addiction's life, the joy of experiencing the addicted substance goes out the window, and it's merely the feeding of a compulsion due to physical and psychologoical addiction that is being serviced when it's indulged in. As amayos stated earlier, the addict knows where things are headed, but feels powerless to stop. Footnote: The longer post a few posts ago by amayos was really great at getting to the heart of the question of this thread, I thought. I don't recall ever reading much by present or former addicts stating their addiction was an overall UNpleasant experience at its end stages, and I do think that possibly has to do as much with social mores (re: booze and drugs) as much as anything else - who would promote such reading matierial in 2006? But I think such experiences might indeed be in existence (and no, I am not promoting drug addiction or booze addiction - at all, by saying this. I am just pointing out the people who would come forward to promote it have thinned a lot since the late 1960's). But, there is one thing I was thinking...addiction to a person, that is slightly different. A drug can't talk to you and get inside your head. A drug or booze, it might be argued, can't affect your existence is such myriad ways. A drug doesn't volunteer to put itself inside your mind or self - you have to seek it out, every single time you invite it in. If you're living with someone, though, or they've become a part of your life in a major way, they are there in your life, alongside you - affecting your life in all sorts of ways that can influence, probably sometimes almost imperceptibly (but at the same time very definitely), which way the wind blows, so to speak, in terms of you needing them more and more - every day. Or not. At least, that's what I imagine happens. The addicted one may claim, rightly, that they are in the grip of something they are powerless to affect or overcome, but they in fact made the initial choice (depending on the circumstances, I suppose) to be in the relationship, and are thus equally responsible, with the other person in it, for the ramifications of what happens after that choice was made. Or are they? This is an interesting thread. Where are all of the CM members who are attorneys? They'd love this thread - they'd have a field day with it, I think. It would also maybe help if we could revive a member of the Jim Jones religious cult that suicided by drinking the poisonous Kool-Aid, which he ordered them to do, under the pretense they would enter heaven (really). Were they forced to do that, because they wanted so badly to believe him? Much of the rest of the world came to the conclusion they were forced, as I recall reading. I think the term they used was brainwashed - even though the emmebrs of that cult voluntarily joined it to begin with. But then there is another example - does anyone besides me remember when heiress Patricia Hearsy was kidnapped by the 'Symbionese Liberation Army'? She was fighting for their side, even though she was their kidnapping victim, and some experts decided she was suffering from "Stockholm syndrome" (identifying with her captors as means of psychological survival). But, she was prosecuted anyway. So - amayos is right - I think the answer to this question will ultimately go either way, depending on who you ask, and the specific circumstances surrounding the question, which always seem to color the view. - Susan
< Message edited by SusanofO -- 9/3/2006 2:35:43 AM >
_____________________________
"Hope is the thing with feathers, That perches in the soul, And sings the tune without the words, And never stops at all". - Emily Dickinson
|