|
Post by christiandeist on Jun 3, 2009 8:45:33 GMT -5
Hello Arietty,
I agree with you concerning the destructive nature of the "death to self" concept. It hurts men, too.
We are told that we must be leaders and providers. If I end up stuck in a life I don't like, I must suck it up, die to myself, and soldier on. I cannot approach my wife as an equal partner and ask her to help us restructure our lives in a way that is fulfilling to both of us.
The most common scenario is a life built on the man's income alone. The man hates his job, but cannot earn the same money if he makes a change. Another common story is the man who is not making enough to support the family in an acceptable fashion, but cannot ask his wife to work.
|
|
|
Post by AustinAvery on Jun 3, 2009 9:58:18 GMT -5
I would hope that "liberal" bedroom rules advocate, and only allow, conduct that is consensual (i.e. willing participation by both parties).
I'm over 50 so I'm well behind the times, but I have read (Time, Newsweek, various blogs) that the younger set has simply rocketed past our taboos. What you mention as humiliating apparently some young women see as a way to enjoy sex without risking pregnancy (that they are risking HIV infection is, saddly, lost on them), so it seems, yes, the times they are a changin' . . . still.
|
|
|
Post by momgodin on Jun 3, 2009 10:23:22 GMT -5
I would hope that "liberal" bedroom rules advocate, and only allow, conduct that is consensual (i.e. willing participation by both parties). I'm over 50 so I'm well behind the times, but I have read (Time, Newsweek, various blogs) that the younger set has simply rocketed past our taboos. What you mention as humiliating apparently some young women see as a way to enjoy sex without risking pregnancy (that they are risking HIV infection is, saddly, lost on them), so it seems, yes, the times they are a changin' . . . still. thanks. I'm 48, so...you understand. but when we say "consentual", what does that mean in a dysfunctional, submissive relationship? does it have any meaning?
|
|
|
Post by AustinAvery on Jun 3, 2009 10:47:02 GMT -5
I would hope that "liberal" bedroom rules advocate, and only allow, conduct that is consensual (i.e. willing participation by both parties). I'm over 50 so I'm well behind the times, but I have read (Time, Newsweek, various blogs) that the younger set has simply rocketed past our taboos. What you mention as humiliating apparently some young women see as a way to enjoy sex without risking pregnancy (that they are risking HIV infection is, saddly, lost on them), so it seems, yes, the times they are a changin' . . . still. thanks. I'm 48, so...you understand. but when we say "consentual", what does that mean in a dysfunctional, submissive relationship? does it have any meaning? Short answer: probably not. Longer answer: Whenever questions turn on semantics, the answer gets bogged down and is harder to define. Some "submission" is probably fine. I submit to my wife on child care issues, even when I disagree with her just to keep the peace. Some couples apparently mutually enjoy submissive sexual play. But "dysfunctional submissive" sounds like one of the partners is not really consenting. At that point I'm out of my league. I would suggest, however, that either (1) the couple needs counseling to help the woman express her needs and desires to a man willing to honor them, or (2) the woman need to come to this site for understanding, support, and encouragement . . . and see where it goes from there.
|
|
|
Post by sargassosea on Jun 3, 2009 21:18:01 GMT -5
Momgodin -
Personally, I find that the trend toward sodomy (oral and anal) is more an issue of the mainstreaming - or normalizing - of pornography into the American 'secular' world.
Sodomy is not so much a way for young women to avoid pregnancy (there are other, better ways to do that! We do still have a couple of rights...) as it is a way to 'please' the young man who now expects it.
*edit to add - 1. (oral and anal) 2. surely there are women and men who enjoy either or both, of course.
|
|
|
Post by kisekileia on Jun 3, 2009 21:41:13 GMT -5
I think there's a lot of variation on the sodomy issue. Some girls do it to please their boyfriends and not get pregnant; other women really do enjoy it, especially when it's done with a careful, considerate partner (and a lot of lube!).
|
|
|
Post by fivepercent on Jun 7, 2009 8:57:34 GMT -5
Actually, I know of a ministry which counsels men this way and it is very refreshing! Here is a quote from Joel and Kathy Davisson's "Man of Her Dreams, Woman of His": QUOTE:Paul declared that men are to love their wives as Christ loved the church. They are to lay their lives down for their wives as Christ laid His life down for the church. The disciples were no doubt stunned, in shock and in awe. They witnessed the passion of Christ first hand – up close and personal. They watched Jesus get beat to a bloody pulp. They stood by in horror as He carried and then hung on that same cross, naked, unrecognizable and rejected by God. They were eyewitnesses to this love that their beloved Jesus expressed to His bride, the church. They watched Jesus lay His life down for His bride.
I am sure that they reeled with this information, asking in disbelief, “How can we, as mere men, possibly lay our lives down for our wives as completely as Christ laid His life down for the church? This will take a lifetime of dedication to my wife. At best, I will not come close to what I saw Jesus just do because He so loved His bride.”
Jesus did not look up from the ground and say, “If you do not submit to me, I will not die for you.” No. Jesus did not do that. He just died for His bride, regardless of her response. Yes, Jesus had the hope laid before Him that she would respond by loving and serving Him in return, but there were no guarantees. He had to die. First. With no strings attached. This is how a husband is to love his wife. There are no guarantees, but there is a promise, and this promise is that your wife will have a desire for you. (Genesis 3:16) This is a promise you can count on. But, you must die first. You must lay your life down for your wife first.
Do you see why traditional marriage teachings have failed the church? The church has taught for more than an entire generation that the success or failure of a marriage was solely dependent on a wife’s willingness to lay her life down in complete submission and service to her husband. (A generation is 40 years.) Women have been taught that if they will submit completely to their husband and follow his leadership in everything, that God would deal with him and that someday, he would be a good husband. It did not matter if he treated her rudely, yelled at her, called her names, or even treated her worse than his dog. She was simply to submit and pray.
This failed paradigm required a wife to function in the role of the husband, laying her life down for him as Christ laid His life down for the church. The church, for over 45 years, has taught marriage completely backwards! Is there any wonder that we have a 50% plus divorce rate in the church!
I guarantee that never once did an early church husband say to his wife, “You have to submit to me!” What an insult this would have been to the pain, agony and suffering that this husband witnessed Jesus go through for the church. When I hear a man declare, “My wife has to submit to me!” I want to scream at him in righteous anger, “How dare you worry about whether or not your wife is submitting to you? Have you died for her yet? Have you suffered in meeting her needs to the extent that Jesus suffered in dying for you? How dare you insult the blood of Jesus by demanding submission, when you have not yet begun to lay your life down for your wife in loving her, validating her, listening to her feelings, meeting her needs and serving her?” ENDQUOTECharis - I LOVE THIS! Thank you so much for sharing this. I cried when I read it. A few years ago, I was almost married in the Catholic church. I had to read what I called 'the Catholic marriage book' and that was the first time I had heard of husband headship/submissive wife. The whole concept angered me and began a period of alienation from God. I suppose I should post about that elsewhere...anyway, reading this helps my faith, which has been hurting for a few years now. Thanks. And Arietty - I never thought before how asking a person why they stayed in an abusive relationship could be a blaming question - even though I have been on the receiving end of that question! Thanks for pointing that out, and I'm glad you got out of that relationship yourself.
|
|
vana
New Member
Posts: 6
|
Post by vana on Jun 7, 2009 8:57:34 GMT -5
I can only speak for myself, which is definitely NOT the typical Christian viewpoint (currently agnostic, formerly pagan/Wiccan for a while, raised Pentacostal... for whatever that's worth) but someone like me may ask questions like "If it was that bad why did you stay with him so many years? Why did you have all these children with him?” out of genuine confusion and curiosity.
Someone up thread said that leaving an abusive husband in QF/P situations sometimes doesn't even occur to the abusee. Likewise, staying in that situation would have never occurred to me. I would no more be able to stay in an abusive relationship than to keep my hand on a burning hot stove. Nor would I, if faced with that same burning hot stove, be able to justify having a child only to force their hand to it. I'm sure there have been at least a few people, like me, who've questioned your actions because they just couldn't understand them.
The whole reason I read this blog is because the experiences of women who've lived this lifestyle come across as if from an entirely different world. I read to understand better because, honestly, the whole concept is just so darn foreign to me. That kind of lack of understanding can sometimes prompt questions that may seem similar to the accusatory fare used by conservative Christians, but don't necessarily have the same motivation behind them.
As for why no one blames the abusive husband, I'd be shocked if, outside that conservative Christian bubble, anybody didn't blame the men for their behavior. Physically, mentally, sexually, spiritually abusing anyone, for any reason, is not acceptable- that's as commonly known as the fact that the sky is blue and grass is green. If that fact isn't mentioned, it is probably because it's such a given that an abusive husband is obviously in the wrong and is a dangerous and sick individual. No one in their right mind blames an abusee for what they've suffered, but that doesn't mean an abused wife shouldn't be held accountable for her actions in reaction to the abuse.
Basically, everyone is responsible for their own actions. If a wife makes a poor choice in response to a husband's abuse- she is in the wrong for that choice, just as much as the husband is in the wrong for choosing to abuse his wife.
At least that's how I, and pretty much my social circle, view situations like this. But as I said before, we may not be the typical observers.
There are also plenty of women who are using the prevalence of sodomy to have their own desires in the bedroom satisfied. Don't forget that women can enjoy oral sex performed on them, male-female anal sex, or female-male anal sex (which an open partner and a little help)
|
|
|
Post by coleslaw on Jun 7, 2009 9:59:05 GMT -5
Imagine you are in a bank, peacefully transacting your business, when you hear yelling. A group of men have run into the bank, holding weapons, and are screaming at everyone to get down on the floor. You realize that your survival in that situation depends on you making the right choices in response to the situation.
Do you know what the right choices are? Are you prepared, right at that moment, to make them?
A woman in a abusive situation tries to make the right choices in response to her husband's abuse. Often what seems like the right choice is "get down on the floor". Don't anger the man with the gun. Stop pissing him off. If she seeks help from who she thinks are the right people to help her (her pastor, her church friends) they pretty much tell her the same thing. Get down on the floor (and pray while you're there). Don't piss off the man with the gun.
Eventually she may realize that no matter how well she follows orders, the man with the gun is angry anyway. He's angry because that's his nature. So she decides to run.
And the man with the gun shoots her. The most dangerous time for a woman in an abusive relationship is when she tries to leave. Read your local paper for the next year. See how long it takes you to read about a man who kills a wife or girlfriend and read the line "He was depressed over the breakup of their relationship".
Sure anyone will take their hand off a hot stove as long as no one is holding that hand down on the stove. You don't seem to have allowed for that possibility.
|
|
vana
New Member
Posts: 6
|
Post by vana on Jun 7, 2009 12:41:33 GMT -5
Your analogy is flawed (mine was flawed as well, which I'll address in a moment) Imagine you're in the same situation you described- in a bank that gets robbed everyday or every week or with a similar regularity. Eventually, people are going to start wondering why you keep going back to that bank. My original post was only meant to point out that the curiosity and confusion over that decision is just a natural reaction, imho, not necessarily people blaming the victim for not keeping the bank from being robbed (as the original blog post seemed to imply people asking that question may be getting at)- it was not meant to start a arguement (I don't mind discussing the topic, I just feel that since it is a highly volatile one, I should go into this saying I don't want to fight)
And I assure you that I don’t need to read a paper to know leaving an abuser can be dangerous and, at times, fatal. I’m familiar with domestic violence and spent a short time as a teenager living in an abused women’s shelter with my mother. I’m also going to assume that you don’t need to read anything to know that staying with an abuser can be just as dangerous and deadly.
The flaw with my analogy is that a stove doesn't start out burning hot- it gets hot gradually. And likewise, domestic abuse is usually a progressive thing. I would actually take my hand off the stove before it became burning hot. In a relationship, there's usually a chance to take your hand off the stove before someone holds you to it (ie- nipping the relationship in the bud early on by taking heed of warning signs that are usually present with men who turn out to be abusers)
|
|
|
Post by coleslaw on Jun 7, 2009 13:44:56 GMT -5
The question Arietty raises in "No-Win Scenario #2" is, why do people ask "Why did you stay?" of women, like Arietty and Laura and Vyckie, who didn't stay? Arietty has been divorced for 10 years and remarried happily. That's not staying in a bad relationship, that's getting out of one. It's hard to believe that mere curiosity would lead someone to ask a woman why she stayed when she didn't. That's the kind of behavior that sounds more like it's coming from a questioner who is determined to find something wrong with the woman's behavior, like the timing of the leaving, even when that questioner knows that timing is very important in leaving an abusive relationship because it can be literally a matter of life and death.
|
|
vana
New Member
Posts: 6
|
Post by vana on Jun 7, 2009 14:23:51 GMT -5
I've never been privvy to a situation where this has been asked, but I would assume most people actually ask (or mean to ask, and just use the wrong words) "why did you stay so long?"
Obviously, asking someone who has left an abusive relationship "why did you stay" and meaning it as if they were still in the relationship makes no more sense than telling someone currently in an abusive relationship, "Boy, I'm glad you left him/her."
|
|
|
Post by luneargentee on Jun 7, 2009 15:27:23 GMT -5
Your analogy is flawed (mine was flawed as well, which I'll address in a moment) Imagine you're in the same situation you described- in a bank that gets robbed everyday or every week or with a similar regularity. Eventually, people are going to start wondering why you keep going back to that bank. Let's change it a bit. The woman is an employee of this bank. This bank is robbed on a regular basis, for various reasons. The woman is also being harassed by her abusive supervisor. However, she's paid decently, enough to live on. She feels good about doing her job well. She has many customers who visit regularly, and she and the customers both look forward to the visits. She receives good job reviews and regular raises. She devotes a lot of energy to her job and feels good about how she both helps the customers and protects the bank's assets. She feels good about what she does and who she is. A lot of people are going to ask why she doesn't leave the job. After all, she's had a gun put to her face and her life threatened at least three times. Her supervisor is a jerk who belittles her in front of customers. She's going to respond that she likes her customers and they know the supervisor is being a jerk. She likes the work she does and gets a sense of fulfillment from it. She has had this job for twelve years and she doesn't want to start over somewhere else. She doesn't want to complain about the supervisor, because otherwise he does a very good job, he isn't abusive all the time, and it would start a big hassle for everyone if she made a complaint. With abusive relationships, it seldom starts out that way. The abuser waits until the victim is in a situation that would make it difficult for the victim to leave. Then it begins. It builds, often slowly. A bit here, a bit there. The introduction of these changes is so gradual that the victim often doesn't realize what is going on. It's just one more little thing for the victim to deal with. Add religion to this mess, and it's Mt. St. Helens building up. One day it will explode. The victim will finally leave for the last time, either because she escapes or because she is killed. She may even kill herself.
|
|
|
Post by AustinAvery on Jun 7, 2009 15:38:28 GMT -5
If a lawyer asks a woman in a deposition taken during her divorce, "Why did you stay?" We all know that the point is to find a way to blame the woman--and yes, Vana's absolutely right, to try to take some of the blame off the man where we all believe it belongs.
But a woman on this site asking another woman on this site sure strikes me as utterly different. I can well imagine the psychological reasons one might stay, so I've never thought to ask that question, but when I did stop to wonder, the bank robbery scenario helps answer the question very well. One robbery or several. Perhaps, by asking the question and truly exploring the various answers, we build a better perspective and vocabulary to help those who have not yet left.
|
|
vana
New Member
Posts: 6
|
Post by vana on Jun 7, 2009 16:10:12 GMT -5
I think this new scenario does probably reflect an abusive relationship better. But, just like before, some people are going to continue to question the employee's staying at the job because they simply don't understand it, not because they're making a judgment about it. If the woman in the example was a friend of mine, I'd still be confused because there's no reason she can't get another job, at different bank, with a good supervisor, new customers she likes, that doesn't get robbed at all. There's always going to be people who think that the pay/customers/seniority/etc would never be worth the negatives of that job, and they're always going to be curious about those who do find it worthwhile to stay (long or short term)
I'd submit that in a least some, if not many, of these cases, the "situation" that would make it difficult to leave is indirectly caused by the abuser and counts as the beginning of the abuse. Convincing someone to quit their job and end all their other meaningful relationships so that they have no resources and nobody to turn to when the abuse graduates to the next level? That's abuse in-and-of-itself and a huge red flag that further abuse is ahead.
At that point, there seems to be people who end the relationship there, having heeded those red flags. Then, there are those who continue the relationship who sometimes (not always- sometimes a controlling jerk remains just a controlling jerk without escalating) end up being abused further. I think an important part of the dialog with people who've been abused and escaped, that ties into the "why did you stay" question, is to figure out why they crossed that "point of no return" so we can arm future vulnerable woman with the emotional tools they need to end the relationship before it hits that next stage.
|
|
|
Post by coleslaw on Jun 7, 2009 18:37:02 GMT -5
I forgot to mention earlier, my scenario was not intended as an analogy, although it did allow for an extended metaphor. It was an introduction to the 2 questions you never answered - in the situation described in which your survival depends on making the right choices, do you know what the right choices are? Are you prepared, right at that moment, to make them?
Because unless the answer is yes, say if you happen to be a former Special Forces member who has since trained as a hostage negotiator, it shouldn't be too much of a stretch to understand how other people can find themselves in other situations in which they don't know what the right choices are or aren't prepared to make them, even if you do.
|
|
|
Post by arietty on Jun 7, 2009 18:37:38 GMT -5
The point for me with these questions is that they are trying to get the woman to justify her actions because it is assumed that there is something not ideal about those actions. The ideal is that you get married, work hard at it, attain a reasonable level of happiness.
Why did you leave? Why did you stay? There is no single answer to these things, it is not a question like "why did you touch the stove". It's part of the long journey of life. If you find it difficult to understand vana think about other relationships in your life, friendships, work relationships.. most of us have at some point either ended such relationships or allowed them to die by attrition. This is accepted, people move on, relationships sour. But marriage is held up as measure of a person's health and success in life. We are called to explain and justify why it ended and why we didn't end it sooner in a way we never hear when it comes to all the other relationships in our lives.
I don't know about you but in these economic times I have known a lot of people very unhappy at work, with a horrible employer or awful co-workers they dread spending 8 hours a day with.. but they have to stick it out because they simply do not have any other good options. They have mortgages, kids, insurance needs.. and it's not as easy as removing their hand from the stove. Not easy at all. It can take a woman quite a while to work out her options for leaving.. the financial, the practical (who lives in the house?) and the emotional because it is a very difficult thing to be abandoned by your support network of a community. Christian women in certain communities know this will be the case.
There is not one point of leaving or one point of staying. I know when I left physically I had been on the journey of leaving for quite some time emotionally, mentally and spiritually. I know other women in abusive situations are on their own journeys and there is a lot more to them walking away from the man than removing their hand from the stove.
|
|
|
Post by rosa on Jun 7, 2009 19:03:21 GMT -5
Arietty, that's a really important point - there are steps to leaving, and they can start with just mentally getting ready, gathering resources...sometimes I think my mom spent 8 or 9 years getting ready to leave. But she doesn't see it that way - each step she took towards independence she saw as a chance for him to say "you're right, you're a beautiful, intelligent person and you can make your own decisions." Instead, he threw tantrums and acted like a jealous asshole - so then she took the next step away. It's only in retrospect that it looks like a long-term plan with many small stages.
The other thing is that what Vana said is true - "Convincing someone to quit their job and end all their other meaningful relationships so that they have no resources and nobody to turn to when the abuse graduates to the next level? That's abuse in-and-of-itself and a huge red flag that further abuse is ahead." - but because patriarchal control and abuse is so normal in our culture, the abuser may not be any different than any other man in asking his wife not to work, not to see other people often, not to listen to them if they express criticism of him or those decisions. Or if he is different, it's a difference of degree, not type. And of course, there are a lot of churches that demand the same thing and consider it not just healthy but a sign you're really saved.
To illustrate a "mainstream" control issue for married people: if you wanted to go to a movie with a friend and your partner said "No! If I let you do that, you'll cheat on me! Stay home!" we'd all say "that person is abusive and insanely jealous." But if your friend was of the opposite sex, and the objection was phrased a little more mildly, I would bet that a majority of people around you would agree with the spouse.
That one I take from experience - I have married friends, I worked on the same office team with the wife, but I've know the husband for years. We go to movies together that neither of our partners is willing to see. EVERY SINGLE ONE of my teammates thought it was odd that she "let" me go to a movie with her husband and wasn't bothered by it. "What are you doing?" "Going to a movie with R." "Does his wife know? Isn't she mad?"
Difference of degree.
|
|
vana
New Member
Posts: 6
|
Post by vana on Jun 7, 2009 19:56:36 GMT -5
The reason I never answered the questions was that I don't feel they're applicable to the situation at all. A bank robbery is a sudden, one-time event that is impossible to anticipate.
If we apply the same criteria to a situation of domestic abuse- I'd have to be married to someone who never showed any warning signs of being an abuser (no red flags- nothing) who suddenly hauled off and tried to kill me. In this case, I'd do exactly what you suggested most people would do- anything to get the scary person trying to kill me to, you know, not kill me.
But that's where the metaphor completely falls apart in practical usage- first of all, that would be an extremely atypical example of how abuse usually plays out. Barring, perhaps, mental illness that rears up suddenly out of the blue, there are almost always signs of impending danger (how many abused women have looked at their spouse's early behavior and said "I didn't think anything of it then, but...") Secondly, it's one thing to do anything to survive a one-time violent, dangerous event, it's entirely different to come back for seconds. How many people would think it prudent to, after having been in one bank hold up, walk back into the same bank again, while you can plainly see that there are people waving around guns in the lobby.
So basically, I never answered those questions because I agree with what you were getting at when you posed them. However, the metaphor and your conclusions can only logically be applied to the first instance of abuse, not subsequent instances.
Maybe that's where a basic level of mental/intellectual disconnect happens with people like me- how can those actions be ideal? Any situation where someone is physically, mentally, and emotionally terrorized cannot be ideal. Not by the English language definition of the word (look it up if you don't believe me), not by American social standards (exactly why, outside of certain circles, domestic abuse is extremely frowned upon ), not even by biological standards (self-preservation is one of the highest of human compulsions) Staying with an abuser, or not ending a relationship at the earliest available point after abuse begins (instead of ignoring the problem, or hoping it gets better, or any number of other things people unfortunately do while the abuse is only getting worse and their options are becoming more limited), is so far away from what is logical that it does lend itself to people wanting to know how "what should be" got so badly distorted and subverted that it became the "what is" in an abusive relationship.
Unfortunately, the "bad work environment" metaphor only goes so far. I've had bad bosses, jobs, and co-workers (incidentally, I did quit because I felt it wasn't worth the negative impact on my well-being) but I've never been in a work situation where I was physically and mentally/emotionally tormented, nor do I know anyone who has suffered in a workplace in the same way abused spouse suffers and stayed in that job. I'm not talking about people sticking around in bad jobs/marriages, I'm specifically focusing on actual abusive relationships.
And as for the hand-on-the-stove wording, please don't mistake what I was trying to do with that allegory/metaphor (darned if I don't always get those two mixed up) I'm not saying leaving an abusive relationship is as easy as taking your hand off a hot stove. Most people understand that abusees are generally at a great financial and social disadvantage while leaving their abusers and may need some time to gather the resources to do so.
A better way (though probably not 100% accurate) to put it might be that deciding to leave an abusive relationship, I would think, should be as easy as deciding to take your hand off a hot stove. Arietty, you say it's more difficult than that, but I just don't understand why (again, the line of logic gets to a certain point and there's just a mental disconnect for me. Though I hate very much to even think it, maybe there's just an inherent difference in personality types that causes some people to be predisposed to a mindset that encourages vulnerability?) A abusive marriage injures the abusee and a hot stove injures the person touching it. End of the logic line- no "if"s, "and"s, or "but"s. And neither my religion, nor my social circle/"friends" (some of these Christian friends I keep hearing about epitomize the phrase "with friends like those, who needs enemies?") could ever convince me that staying in an abusive relationship is any more acceptable than standing still while my hand burns to a crisp.
Rosa, you make a very good point about the "hanging out with opposite sex friends" issue that comes up in a lot of relationships. However, I think the difference may be how the request is made- it doesn't have to be a control issue. If my boyfriend/husband asked me not to hang out alone with my opposite sex friends, I'd probably agree to it, especially if he told me he was feeling a bit insecure/jealous about the situation. However, if he commanded me not to hang out with them, not only would I do whatever I wanted with my friends (and probably rub it in his face), I'd more than likely dump him as well (personal experience with my mother's bad choices in men has made me, perhaps, a little hyper-vigilant to that kind of controlling B.S.) There's a difference between asking and controlling.
|
|
|
Post by rosa on Jun 7, 2009 20:35:59 GMT -5
But that's the thing...if he makes reasonable-seeming requests that add up to a pattern of you never having solid relationships outside your marriage, at what point did it go over the line into abuse?
And if he keeps saying that he loves you, he's protecting you, he'd do anything for you, but doing things that undermine your confidence and abilities, at what point is it "reasonable" (oh, he was raised that way, he has a temper, he's just insecure...) and at one point is he gaslighting you or being plain old garden-variety abusive? That's the thing people keep saying: there may be red flags when you look back, like you said, but that doesn't mean you look at something like "he's restricting my pleasure in my friends rather than deal with his feelings of jealousy" turn into "I should have known he'd try to ruin my life?"
|
|
|
Post by kisekileia on Jun 7, 2009 21:13:43 GMT -5
Vana, I think you fundamentally don't understand the psychological dynamics of abuse.
Abuse makes a person feel worthless, and often makes them lose their sense of self. It makes them feel there is no way out, either because the abuser tells them (or implies to them) that there is no way out, or because their current and past life situations have been limited enough that they don't have enough reason to believe there is a way out. It makes them feel that they are unworthy of getting out, as well.
You appear to have a lot of self-esteem and self-confidence and to be able to step back from situations you are personally involved in and objectively identify abusive behaviours, and that's great. Lots of people don't have those qualities. How is someone who grew up in grandmalou's situation supposed to be able to tell good and bad men apart, having hardly ever known good men? How is someone whose worth has always been degraded supposed to realize that when the most influential person in their life degrades their worth, that person is wrong? It's likely that inherited personality traits play some role in determining a person's ability to mentally step outside their situation, figure out something is wrong, and believe it's worth trying to get out, but environment (especially childhood environment) is most likely a HUGE part of it.
|
|
|
Post by arietty on Jun 7, 2009 21:34:38 GMT -5
A better way (though probably not 100% accurate) to put it might be that deciding to leave an abusive relationship, I would think, should be as easy as deciding to take your hand off a hot stove. Arietty, you say it's more difficult than that, but I just don't understand why (again, the line of logic gets to a certain point and there's just a mental disconnect for me. Though I hate very much to even think it, maybe there's just an inherent difference in personality types that causes some people to be predisposed to a mindset that encourages vulnerability?) A abusive marriage injures the abusee and a hot stove injures the person touching it. End of the logic line- no "if"s, "and"s, or "but"s. And what if you had been raised to believe or come to believe that DIVORCE was going to involve far more burning than the hot stove? What if you believed in Hell and thought that breaking a marriage really put that on the table as an option? Or don't even bother with Hell, just open up any Christian magazine today or any secular media 20 years ago and you will find endless articles and statistics about how divorce damages children. That meme has been a very aggressive one, hence generations of couples staying together "for the children". Many women come to believe that by leaving they are choosing the lesser of two evils. Truly, it is a hard thing to believe that you are not choosing an evil by leaving for yourself and your children, you are choosing a very good thing. (I think that went a long way to estranging me from my fellow christians, that I always stated that my divorce was 100% a good thing). Some of the women I've know who have spent years in abusive marriages are the strongest women I've known. They are bound there by ideology, fear based ideology for the most part. Sometimes they are hugely idealistic, they believe everything WILL be better even if this does not happen until Heaven. It takes a lot of strength to persevere in an abusive situation, believing this is what you are called to do by an omnipotent being. These women are not pictures of vulnerability. Sometimes they are pretty damn fierce. These are the people who usually burn out and find themselves with crumbled beliefs and wake up and smell the coffee of what this belief system and their devotion to it has done to their families.
|
|
|
Post by jemand on Jun 7, 2009 22:57:52 GMT -5
Rosa, you make a very good point about the "hanging out with opposite sex friends" issue that comes up in a lot of relationships. However, I think the difference may be how the request is made- it doesn't have to be a control issue. If my boyfriend/husband asked me not to hang out alone with my opposite sex friends, I'd probably agree to it, especially if he told me he was feeling a bit insecure/jealous about the situation. However, if he commanded me not to hang out with them, not only would I do whatever I wanted with my friends (and probably rub it in his face), I'd more than likely dump him as well (personal experience with my mother's bad choices in men has made me, perhaps, a little hyper-vigilant to that kind of controlling B.S.) There's a difference between asking and controlling. It wouldn't matter a bit how the request is made... any sort of feigned (it often is) or real "insecurity" or "jealousy" no matter how "benign" would be enough to send my red flags up to high alert... if it involves me NOT going out with another friend because he thinks I will cheat... I'm pretty sure I'd end the relationship right there. But that's me. If he had a reason to be depressed, or feel bad about himself or something (job lost, family member died, etc. etc.), I'd offer either he could come along or some OTHER time to be together, but I would never accept being asked to change my set of friends for "jealousy" sake. For that matter, I have an extremely low tolerance for jealousy at all, and I do not understand THAT any more than you apparently understand staying in an abusive situation. I think this is probably because I tend more to being polyamorous; though the amount of emotional energy required to actually make that work is way more than I have to put towards relationships at this time (and probably ever), so my bf and I are happily monogamous. However, neither one of us is remotely jealous in the least. I couldn't be with a guy who was otherwise. But, see that's the thing. I think I am psychologically and personally "primed" to not be, and not understand, jealousy, and to completely reject it as an argument to change behavior. Other people aren't. Similarly, other people may be both just naturally and situationally primed to be "perfect" victims, and an abuser will just try and try until he finds one, and after awhile gets pretty good at picking them out.
|
|
linnea
Junior Member
Posts: 80
|
Post by linnea on Jun 8, 2009 0:09:03 GMT -5
Rosa writes: But that's the thing...if he makes reasonable-seeming requests that add up to a pattern of you never having solid relationships outside your marriage, at what point did it go over the line into abuse?
I wonder about this too. Is isolating your partner from other people *always* part of the package of abuse? I suppose the issue of wanting to control your partner is a red flag. But couldn't you, in theory, have a couple who are both happier when their partner focuses on them and doesn't have much in the way of outside friendships, without there being any abuse involved?
|
|
|
Post by kisekileia on Jun 8, 2009 2:03:25 GMT -5
I think, Linnea, that whether that would work would depend on whether both partners had an equal say in what happened. If one partner is trying to isolate the other from the rest of the world, that's not OK. If two partners both prefer to stick close to home and are both happy with that arrangement, it might be just fine, at least for the duration of the relationship.
|
|