ADD Forums - Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder Support and Information Resources Community  

Go Back   ADD Forums - Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder Support and Information Resources Community > ADULTS AND ADD/ADHD > Relationships & Social Issues
Register Blogs FAQ Chat Members List Calendar Donate Gallery Arcade Mark Forums Read

Relationships & Social Issues This forum is for adults with AD/HD to discuss how AD/HD affects personal relationships.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old 03-23-05, 02:10 PM
Coral Rhedd Coral Rhedd is offline
 

Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 614
Thanks: 0
Thanked 14 Times in 9 Posts
Coral Rhedd is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stabile

Kay and I have a definition of rape, the forced self violation of another person, in which we mean to imply both that the victim's self is violated, and also that the victim is forced to commit the actual violation.

A person's self is changed arbitrarily in this process. That's the murder of the soul thing in a nutshell, and it's real.

That is what sets it apart from all other crimes, and it doesn't matter a whit if there is sex involved. All that matters is a person is forced to make themselves into something they are not.
The common definitions of rape deal specifically with sexual assault which, however you want to slice it, has its own particular devastation. I have some problem with extending the definition to other behaviors because to do so would encourage people to think that abuse is abuse is abuse.

I believe there are many types and degrees of abuse, but a man who loses his temper at his wife and screams at her is not a rapist.

Quote:
The correct view is that women have built in genetic 'defects' that allow men to make them do these things, violate their self model to construct what the male wants her to be.
If this is so and they are genetics, then they will be very difficult to change. I believe -- and much current research would support my belief -- that genetics trumps environment most of the time.

When women behave submissively to men, it is often for very realistic, basic survival reasons. This behavior is learned and not inherited. Even if parents try their best not to teach this response, culture will teach it.

I am a feminist. I tried my best to rear my daughter to be a feminist. I do not believe she is a feminist. She is a pragmatist. She sees the lay of the land quite clearly in this respect. She will be supporting no more musician fellas. Instead, she now expects her man to support her. Will she pay a price? Of course she will. We pay a price for all our choices. There is no perfect trade-off.


Quote:
Coral Rhedd's daughter would have been in pain, but she wouldn't have felt responsible, and she certainly wouldn't have had to suffer from a poor self image.

There is no way that Coral Rhedd is going to accept the basic idea that her daughter is stupid as an explanation, and she is absolutely right in that.
Rest assured that I do not see you saying here that my daughter is stupid. In fact she is gifted and graduated from high school with no less than five advanced placements. However, I believe that my daughter has Aspergers, in addition to being untreated ADD. She is naive and takes many things incredibly literally. But she is beginning to understand that she can be easily fooled and manipulated. Despite her disabilities, I believe that anyone can be fooled by a practiced narcissitic sociopath -- even if they adopt your particular method of sorting the wheat from the chaff Stabile.

Quote:
The problem we have with this advice in general is that the mechanisms in women that allow men to force them to change themselves against their will all seem like one of these little voices you should listen to.
No they don't. What you are referring to are cultural messages. There are also urges -- including sexual urges that pull and tug at us. I do not classify these as intuition or the more commonly referred to "trust you instincts." I do not believe that women are as helpless here as you would like to have us believe. But any mind that tries to parse conflicting messages can become confused.

Quote:
I don't know this book, and some advice is sound. When we talk about recognizing the mechanisms by which women are 'got' and learning to avoid them, it ends up sounding a bit like this, too.

But we've seen books that openly encourage women to engage in what we recognize as dangerous activity, trusting their instincts in situations that lead women into trouble all the time.
De Becker's book is quite the opposite. For one thing, he correctly explains that orders of protection/restraining orders are often not worth the paper that they are written on. Women might be culturally conditioned to rely on the police, but de Becker encourages women to live in the real world.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 03-23-05, 02:17 PM
Coral Rhedd Coral Rhedd is offline
 

Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 614
Thanks: 0
Thanked 14 Times in 9 Posts
Coral Rhedd is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by free2bme
I sent Ian this link to begin with so I need to weigh in here. I think there is some confusion as to what the real issue is. The problem was the title of the article itself. Yes, Sam is a well known narcissist himself. His expertise is in helping to identify and deal with THAT PARTICULAR TYPE OF ABUSER. I hope it is obvious to all of us that narcissists are NOT THE ONLY TYPE OF ABUSER. Sam has never claimed this. While the characteristics mentioned may well be applicable to other abusers, and yes, at times to non-abusers, they are alarmingly, definitely evident in narcissists. The fact that Sam is a narcissist himself has in no way damaged his ability to convey the truth about them. I know this from experience. I know this because I lived through a relationship with one of these monsters. Before it was over I was emotionally devastated, physically beaten into a concussion, partial vision loss, a ruptured disc, and on and on....Any of you who believe this cannot happen, or are concerned about stereotyping abusers (something that boggles my mind, actually) need to be careful. You are setting yourselves up as the perfect mark.

As far as a narcissist goes, this article did not begin at the beginning. I think the intention behind it was a good one, however. Frankly, if a cluster of these traits are recognized by you in another person within a short period of time, I can find no reason why you would not high-tail it in the other direction. The issue of trying to determine narcissism is irrelevant. Just get outta there poste-haste. If you're fortunate enough to do that, you won't need to deal with all of the other horror that comes when the negative parts of the narcissist come out of hiding.

One of the hallmarks of the narcissist, left out of this article, is his/her ability to suck you in with a charm and sweetness, a magneticsm, an intellect and wit, a sense of self-confidence, and an utterly deep connection with you...everything, in short, you've always wanted. However, these people are not real. They present what is called a "false self." The truth is, they don't even know where the truth ends and the faking begins. And they are not interesting in learning. They do not care one iota. I've had many life experiences but can say without a doubt that dealing with a creature such as this was one of the most horrific. Anyone I've spoken to who has personally dealt with a narcissist has said the same thing. In the wake of these people you are left humiliated, feeling utterly worthless, and completely positive that any intelligence you thought you may have had was but a farce. After all, any smart person would see this before it got out of hand, right? Well, months later I can tell you this......NO. Don't delude yourselves. A person with a heart and soul and conscience in tact cannot relate to the thoughts or behaviors of this type of individual. You can never really know them because they don't even have a real self. They change like the turning of a spicket. Therefore, not being able to pick them out is NOT a sign that you are inferior. They are different people depending on what they can gain in a given situation. You fill a need for a moment. You are a supplier of whatever it is that boosts their ego. They will do or say anything to keep you trapped. And again, they are smart enough to succeed in many cases. I'm not being melodramatic. I'm telling you the truth which can be found in other sources if Sam's work does not appeal to you.

Another point, narcisissts aren't drawn to weakliings. They are drawn to people who will represent a conquest. I have interviewed some of the most accomplished and intelligent men and women only to find that they have been utterly shattered by this abuse. There is a definite pattern to who these people go after. Honestly, it sorta made me feel better. I figured if they went for the brighter bulbs in the box it was a bit of a compliment. Believe me, if you ever find yourself in the middle of this nightmare you'll take what little positive you can get. It will not be much because for all but an eternity afterwards you will blame yourself for anything and everything merely because you feel you should have been smarter, you should have been quicker to see.....you should have been more than a human being....

I have no doubt that Ian posted this link hoping to help. I'm clarifying it only becuse I'm concerned that in the debate over different types of abusers, the reliability of the source etc... the issue of narcissism itself will be lost. It is a very uncomfortable topic of conversation for me. However, to assume the article is not dead on in its accuracy is simply to make a mistake that could well cost more than anyone ever wanted to pay. It nearly happened to me and I'm no dummy, so please hear me when I tell you, this is not a trumped up description of a character that does not exist. This is a dead on description of a particular abuser who can be, and often is, deadly.

There is not a sentence in the original article that I did not personally experience. I was, by the end, doubtful of my own ability to think and reason, completely sure that I was the idiot, positive I had no insight, and certain my prior life of independence was something I could not return to. I had become alienated from everyone who ever cared for me. This is but one of their tools. They take you out in a desert and leave you there lost. When he stalked and slugged me I was greatful. There was no way to justify that as the actions of someone who simply needed more understanding. There was no way to assume that I had done something to deserve it. You may find it difficult to believe you would think this way about all of the other abuse. Believe me, if it happens you'll sing a different tune. I had never been physically attacked before, and I was not going to tolerate it. I ended up in the hospital but had him arrested immediately. Charges, of course, were taken out against him and I followed through on those charges. However, in the meantime he took out 4 charges against me. I was still in the hospital at the time. They were four charges I didn't even understand. There was absolutely no basis for them and the police as much as said so. They were four charges that have now been completely dismissed and expunged. But they were four charges that required me to enter a jail, be booked and fingerprinted, and have a mugshot taken which shows a hugely swollen black and blue face, and one terrified woman slumped over in a wheelchair. Why did he do it? Because, just as is mentioned in Sam's article......nothing is the fault of a narcissist. Nothing. After he beat me he looked at me and said...and I quote..."LOOK WHAT YOU MADE ME DO." This is not a made up story, people. This was my life. Even during our court appearance he attempted to convince the judge his attorney was not doing her job. Are you hearing this?

Do not believe this does not exist. You would be passing up an opportunity to perhaps help someone, maybe yourself, should this particular evil pay a visit. I won in the end. He was found guilty and ordered to pay a hefty sum of money. He has already done it again to someone else. He still takes no responsibility. More important than any money, I learned. Do yourself a favor and consider this a lesson best learned vicariously. You don't want to live this one yourselves.

Do you remember how surprised you were to find a place such as this where all of the sudden you realized you weren't the only adult with ADD? Do you remember thinking, "Gosh, I can't believe how prevalent this is?" You may have known it logically, but to find others and interact with them brought a whole new understanding, right? Well, let me tell you, I've been stunned as I conduct interviews for a project, at the number of folks I continue to come across who've lived through the hell of a narcissist. In so many ways it is yet one more issue in the life of an adult that is far too easily shot down by people who simply do not understand it.

Peace.
This was a wonderful post free2bme. It provides a personal illustration of the behavior that Vankin describes in Ian's original post.

I am so sorry for what you went through. You must have felt like the whole world had gone crazy when you were arrested. But what is so important to us now is that you pulled through that terrible ordeal and are able to enlighten us now.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 03-23-05, 02:25 PM
free2bme's Avatar
free2bme free2bme is offline
ADDvanced Contributor
 

Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 594
Thanks: 0
Thanked 19 Times in 6 Posts
free2bme has disabled reputation
Stabile, I am wondering if I have misread at least portions of your post. If so, please let me know. In the meantime, I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with a fairly large portion of what you said.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stabile
Speaking about these things is made purposely difficult by the structure of language, even when they're your own personal experiences, even when speaking might save your life. That's why the few women who do get to court are already at a disadvantage. That's why the guy was able to get away with claiming he didn't do anything.
I do not believe that the structure of language is at all relative to this issue. I know for a fact that I was not at a disadvantage in court in any way, shape, or form. Certainly this is not true of everyone. But in those cases where women are at a disadvantage, the structure of language is hardly the reason. To tell you the truth, if X had thought of that he would likely have used it as an argument in his defense. Also, X didn't get away with claiming he didn't do anything. Did he attempt that? Yes. He was immediately shut down by the Judge and his own Attorney. It seems that to bring up something such as this poses a risk of taking us away from the real issue at hand.

Quote:
The last time we looked at statistics, one in three women in the United States will have reported being raped at least once by the time they reach fifty. The ratio of reported to unreported rape at the time was about 9 or 10 to 1, which means either something is very wrong with the stats or we have a lot of women hidden away somewhere. We looked at the studies and realized that the difference is directly due to language. What 'women reporting rape' means to the police is different than what it means to women.
They're hidden across the street and across the hall. Even more common, they're hidden in the apartments on the other side of the tracks. They're hidden in bars, in mental health facilities. They're hidden in plain site. "Women reporting rape" are not misunderstood by those they report it to. Rape does not mean something different to a police officer than it does to a woman from the housing project. Ask the cop about his wife or daughter. I don't care what language structure a woman uses to convey it, police know what they're hearing. In many cases, the fact of the matter is they simply do not care. This is not the case universally by any means. In times where reporting is not correctly handled though, it has everything to do with the morality of the officer and nothing to do with language barriers.

Quote:
A few years later, right here in our own city, the sex crimes unit of the police department was completely gutted and rebuilt with all new personnel. They had been regularly reclassifying reported rapes as things like arguments, or even purse snatchings, and burying the paper work. The same thing is happening all over. When interviewed, the lead investigator (who had recently retired) said that "…most of these women are lying. If anything did happen, they wanted it." He didn't even blush when he said it.
While this is hardly a surprise, there are but a few names for the reasons behind such activity....discrimination, prejudism, immorality, lack of ethics....those cause the chasm.

Quote:
Any woman going into court faces exactly that attitude. Any woman looking out her front door does, too. It's not right, it’s not fair, and it is so outrageous that it’s difficult to believe.
I don't think every woman going into court faces this. Let me tell you this....my case received a bit of publiciy for a few unimportant reasons. The State's Attorney called and wanted to assist me, even hoping to upgrade the charges against X. This required that I have an interview with a Detective. My first contact with this Detective was via phone. He began like this...."Is X black? Are you black?" I was absolutely sickened to realize what I already knew all along was the truth. He would not have wanted to help me had I not been the person I was. In my case, this guy was eventually reprimanded strongly for such an attitude, and once he realized who I was he apologized profusely. However, the damage was already done. He showed his lack of character. He proved that had I lived in B neighborhood as opposed to A neighborhood he would not have cared. He showed that had I been black instead of white he would not have cared. He showed that had X been black and I white, he would have jumped all over it. He showed that familiarity with some aspect of a person gets you far in many cases where police officers are concerned. These are the issues that are WRONG. These are the issues that cannot be condoned. You're right in using the term outrageous, because it is. But it is outrageous in direct proportion to where a woman comes from. As a woman who "came from the right place" it bothered me deeply and continues to do so.

Quote:
Do not doubt for a moment that every woman on the planet is visited by this. The basis of the primitive mating strategy is rape, and we all deal with that part of ourselves sometime in our lives.
I think this is a bit of a stretch. If you're talking about being victimized in general then yes, we are all visited by that at some point. I do not believe that every woman on the planet is met with abuse and/or rape. I also think it's a bit of an insult to the many admirable men who exist on this planet without having to fight some animalistic urge every waking moment to use the primitave mating strategy as an explanation for attacking someone. I hear where you're coming from, but I don't look at every male I see as a potential rapist, and I think it would be highly wrong to do so.

Quote:
The truth is, there is no woman alive that hasn't already been a victim of this. What determines what we call a female, 'woman' or 'girl', is often whether she's been exposed to it, and how much.
I don't see it this way. And again, I do not believe that every woman is exposed to the behavior. Just as an aside, I continue to call myself a girl, particularly when I'm laughing out loud, or banging on my piano, or talking a mile a minute about an altogether exciting subject. Another thought, when a child is raped or otherwise abused, that child is still a child. That child is a child who has been robbed in the most horrific way, but a child they remain. It would not be fair to take part of their identity away from them along with everything their abuser already took.

Quote:
In the same way that a woman is literally not responsible for what happens to her while another person inhabits her body and mind, these guys are correct: they are not responsible for being human, and wanting to do things that are perfectly natural human behaviors, built in long before they were born. It is literally not any man's fault that he is a rapist, any more than it is a woman's fault that she is a victim; it's our human heritage, hard as that may be to accept.
If this were true we would all be criminals of some sort. If we went back far enough in our own heritage, we would no doubt find horrific behavior. Does this mean that those who are of German descent are not responsible for murder because they may be in the line of Hitler? This seems dangerous to me as it could well serve to give abusers an excuse for their behavior. And not only that, but your next statement contradicted it at least as far as I can understand....

Quote:
And make no mistake about this: the role of men and women is set by the strategy itself, woman as victim, man as rapist. It's perfectly natural, but the male has a choice. The woman doesn't. It will never be equal, and any guy that expresses his natural primitive nature is lying about not being able to control it. He is not lying about it not being his responsibility. But that just isn't relevant; he chose to do it, and it's his fault it happened. By definition, the woman wasn't even there.
Herein lies the key. And herein lies the contradiction. We are no longer animals. We are evolved, at least many of us. Responsibility is directly related to choice. If I buy a car I am reponsible to pay for that car. If I don't I will lose the car. Decisions, the cognitive functioning of our brains, cannot be overlooked. An abuser is responsible for an abusers actions. Period, end of story. How would murderers fit here? If a black man murders a white man is he not responsible due to the undeniale fact that he has had to wage war in order to achieve every small gain made in this society? Does their tribal heritage make them not responsible? I cannot fathom this at all.

Quote:
I think guys get stubborn because it doesn't seem fair that women don't bear some of the responsibility. Too bad, jerkwad.
Guys getting stubborn is an understatement, but jerkwad will do...

Quote:
With all respect (because you were lucky to survive, and most men are more careful about how they do these things), it's certain that every woman will experience this until we understand it in a way that allows us to stop it.
True, many women do not survive being attacked. I don't happen to think most men are more careful than X was, though. I think that, for all of the reasons above, most women are simply not helped. And this is an absolute travesty. To say it is certain that every woman will experience it is a far too wide picture to paint and simply not the truth. Again, if you're talking about being victimized in general, all humans will experience that, if only by way of their own perception. But it seems to me you're talking about abuse and rape specifically, and while any of that is too much, to say that everyone meets with it is just not correct.

Quote:
Calling them that is too polite, and looking for narcissism in men is too polite, too.
Calling a narcissist a narcissist is not too polite when you understand what that term means to its deepest truth. Calling one anything else is too polite. As for looking for narcissism in men being too polite.....I think that to assume all men have the capacity to be evil monsters is a horribly unfair way to view them. I do not live my life that way. Actually, I feel it would be insulting to the three boys who own my heart were I to subscribe to the notion that they are, by way of their very gender, automatically past some point of no return.

Quote:
Every male is born with rape in his toolkit, and it will not stop being a problem for men until they take the responsibility for dealing with it.
I thought you said they weren't responsible for it???

Quote:
But it doesn't have to be a problem for women. We believe that when women finally crack this mess open (as seems to be happening here) and it finally begins to see the light of day, men that are unable to let go of their natural primitive reproductive behaviors will literally die out.
So, how did it become the woman's job to "crack this mess open" and eradicate the abusers from the planet? I don't understand this either. What women need to do is be themselves, make their own lives as best they can, live by the guideposts within their own hearts and souls, and if they themselves make poor decisions....take responsibility for those. Women do not need to solve the problems of the abusing and raping male. Men need to stop acting like heathans and use the brain that hopefully exists in the upper quadrant of their body. Furthermore, we would have to wipe out the enitire human species to eradicate the behaviors because many times, most times, they result from sick childhoods that pervade the fabric of families and are repeated and repeated into eternity. Also, not all abusers are male. Many a narcissist is female. There are females who hit and batter. There are females who kill. This is not solely confined to males.

Quote:
In the end, this is a species issue, and we're going to define what comes next by what we do about this now. Rape is rape, and it is unacceptable. Although I don't think we'll see narcissism disappear right away, I can't imagine it lasting too long after its source is gone. But lets go after the source itself, OK?
This is a justice issue by the time we get to the terms abuse and rape. And the solution is to make absolutely certain that whether a woman comes from a homeless shelter or is the daughter of a politician her case receives the care that it deserves. The solution is to make rape and abuse of all human beings, by any other human being, bring with it a penalty that cannot be bargained or pleaded. The solution is teaching children anywhere and everywhere to value themselves and respect others. The solution is to fire police officers who are discriminatory and prejudiced. The solution is complicated because it requires every person to question their own views. It requires all of us to consider deeply who we elect, where we put our faith, our money, our time.

And as for narcissism.....the source will never be gone because for most, the source is the woman who gave birth to and raised them. There is a direct correlation between that particular relationship and the traits which define a genuine narcissist. And again, females are narcissists also. Narcissism is an entirely complicated issue. It cannot be done away with the way you describe. It will be done away with when human beings no longer exist.

Quote:
You know it, your kids know it, the jerk on the stand knows it, the prosecutor, defense attorney, judge, everyone know about it. We have pretending built in, a protective barrier for the rapist that forces us to have long polite talks about stuff that really demands hard, harsh terms.
In my case the only one pretending was X. Even his Attorney approached me afterwards to apologize for the pain brought to me and my children. There are decent and honest people in our court systems. Not all of them pretend or deny. X did, but he got no where with that. The key to beating a narcissist specifically, is to break them with the truth. They can't win because they've lied so much for so long they do not even recognize what fact is.

Quote:
We're getting there, though. This whole discussion is intolerably rude by ordinary standards. Women aren't supposed to talk about avoiding men. I like it…
I think it's an important discussion. I do not agree that avoiding all men should be a part of it, though. I am not looking for one myself at the moment, but I definitely don't assume they are all representative of the same lack of character X displayed. That would make me an unacceptably judmental person in my own mind. I do not ascribe to living life with fear and negativity and bitterness and resentment. When I meet anyone, I do not assume that they are good or bad. I let them teach me.

I too like that people are discussing such as this, though I definitely find it nerve-wracking. The source of this lies only in the fact that I do not know to whom I'm speaking, and internet communication has made me nervous as of late. Honestly, in my case, that's the one and only point of hesitatation. Still, some issues are too important to ignore. This is one of those. Again, if I misread your post please let me know.
__________________
"I merely took the energy it takes to pout and wrote some blues." Duke Ellington

"After silence, that which comes closest to expressing the inexpressible is music." Aldous Huxley

"Those who danced were thought to be quite insane by those who could not hear the music." Angela Monet
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #34  
Old 03-23-05, 02:45 PM
free2bme's Avatar
free2bme free2bme is offline
ADDvanced Contributor
 

Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 594
Thanks: 0
Thanked 19 Times in 6 Posts
free2bme has disabled reputation
[quote=Stabile]Some of you might recognize this; it's just the 'line of your life' stuff we've been talking about since we joined the forums. Maybe now it will make more sense to you.

Only a woman could write that and mean it. It just isn't true.

Men know exactly what's going on, and even though some of them live false lives for so long that they lose track of what their true self truly is, they are completely aware of that fact that they are being false.

It's a strictly intentional and completely conscious act. I've been breaking the male code of secrecy about this since I was seven or eight, and paying the price. I don't care; it's too screwed up to live with, and there's far too many other problems built into the human male heritage to waste time with this stuff.[quote]

Again, I disagree with you Sabile. To say that a narcissist knows when they're faking is to not understand what a narcissist is. Further, to say that my comment about narcissists not seeing the truth is one that could only come from a female implies much that is neither correct nor fair. I have heard the same statement from males who experienced these people. With all due respect, you are incorrect here. I will repeat the statement again....A true blue narcissist has no idea where the truth begins and the faking ends. This is because they have NO sense of a "true" self at all. I'm too exhausted to go through these two other posts word for word at the moment, but this is one area where, despite your obvious intelligence and insight, I have to say you simply aren't correct.
__________________
"I merely took the energy it takes to pout and wrote some blues." Duke Ellington

"After silence, that which comes closest to expressing the inexpressible is music." Aldous Huxley

"Those who danced were thought to be quite insane by those who could not hear the music." Angela Monet
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 03-23-05, 03:43 PM
Coral Rhedd Coral Rhedd is offline
 

Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 614
Thanks: 0
Thanked 14 Times in 9 Posts
Coral Rhedd is on a distinguished road
[quote=Stabile]
Quote:
It's more likely that you didn't have the thought at all until the first time you reconstructed the memory of what happened. In a way, it's you explaining to yourself why what you think you did seemed to make sense at the time.
I am certain that Ohmama has her own take on this statement but it seems to me be doing exactly what you accuse abusers of doing: Trying to alter another person's sense of self.

When we attempt to tell someone what their memories are or how their memories are constructed, we are, in fact calling into question her statements about her reality. I think we must know someone really well to venture here.

Please remember how much recovered memories have been ridiculed by some who would like to call into question the testimony of victims of abuse.
We believe the truth of anything we perceive is what we can make sense of. What happens during rape has purposely selected over thousands of years to not have any sense at all, in the conventional way we think of things.

Quote:
'No' doesn't mean 'no' because it doesn't mean anything; in order to rape, a person must go beyond the social context in which meaning itself is defined, to circumvent the meaning in what is being done to the victim.
No means no. This redefinition of commonly used terms implies that every difference can be reduced to a matter of what words are chosen to describe experience. I don't think that that is what is happening in this discussion. I think there is a valid difference of opinion going on.

Quote:
In the usual circumstances, a person reconstructs an idea about her self and her experience that includes reasons for what she 'did'. The trick is, there is no reason, and 'she' didn't do anything. If anything of note happened at all, it was to someone else, temporarily constructed by her from her own mind and body under duress.
Could you please clarify what you are referring to in the above statement. Perhaps a plainer approach to language would help us all understand your POV better.
Weird, isn't it? The thing is, this is a literal, scientifically supported interpretation of what happens.

Quote:
The deep primitive mechanisms are essentially a kind of 'off' button for a woman's self model, because they allow a male to take her outside the social context just long enough to make the changes that will cause her to reassemble herself in a form more to his liking.
This is what predatory murderers do. They use the victim for sexual and power gratification in ways that can never be accomplished in the context of a relationship. They rehearse their actions, they ritualize the violating act itself so that if affords them the power they are seeking, and sometimes after their victim's death, they actually pose the body to illustrate their power over the victim and, by extension, over the police.

Quote:
If that seems devious, realize that it's entirely in keeping with the general sense of desperation rampant in the single male world.
You may perceive men as desperate, but it does not make those who resort to violation any less culpable for their actions. To excuse them is to shred the fabric of those elements of culture that are important to conserve. When you set out to rebuild Rome, it sometimes makes sense to keep a few buildings.

Quote:
As consciousness, self-determination, and the appearance of free will became the norm after the invention of complex abstract language, the primitive mating strategy was squeezed into an increasingly strange form that includes areas of our personal universe that are blank, what Kay and I call 'black holes'.
There may be many reasons why freewill is limited, but before I could agree with you that "primitive mating strategy" is even one of these, I would have to see a much clearer definition of what it actually is, than (to my knowledge) you have currently given. For all I know, I might agree with much of what you have to say, if only you would more directly say it.

So far all I can glean is that you say the primitive mating strategy is rape. While I think this is an especially dark view of human history/prehistory, I don't see any reason to believe that it still must be. After all, we do evolve.

I do not believe many rapists are merely using a mating strategy. They need not strategize except to escape the consequence of their acts. They need only use force. No strategy necessary.

Quote:
Or, you can do what Kay and I did, and dive right into the whole mess.

Sometimes I'm amazed we managed to come up again intact, and I can't recommend it.

Besides, it's not necessary. Kay is fond of saying we did that so others won't have to, and she's right. There isn't any reason to go under and try to make sense of all the debris, because it isn't really yours anyway.
If you wish us to extrapolate from your personal experience, you would have to provide us more direct information about that experience, although, as different people, your's and Kay's experience cannot possibly be exactly the same.

Quote:
In the end, it turns all out to be a d*** safety mechanism for the rapist. He takes a quick chance on doing this little trick that is about self-definition, not sex, and if it works, he's got a woman that wants to do what he thinks is fun. Who cares what damage she does to herself while doing it, right?

If it doesn't work, it's no biggie. It wasn't about sex at all, and the worst that happens is he gets written up for inappropriate behavior.
Please see your words above. If it wasn't about sex, wasn't it about violence and, by extension, power.

Quote:
The defect label is meant to be taken lightly. But it certainly exists, regardless of whether you wish it so. I am sorry. It's not my idea, and I would abolish it if I could.
If it is so adaptive (if it exists), how can it be a defect. Mutations are defects. Behavior traits that are nonadaptive are defects by definition.

Quote:
Even if we have to leave men behind. (grin…)
Aren't you a man?

Then surely you are not the only one in existence evolved enough to be worth mating with.

There is something rather puzzling to me about your feeling about your own sex.

I also don't think women would necessarily end up happily mated if their main strategy were to look for the cad in every man.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 03-23-05, 04:01 PM
Stabile's Avatar
Stabile Stabile is offline
ADDvanced Forum ADDvocate
 

Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,729
Thanks: 2
Thanked 71 Times in 53 Posts
Stabile has a spectacular aura aboutStabile has a spectacular aura about
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coral Rhedd
I believe there are many types and degrees of abuse, but a man who loses his temper at his wife and screams at her is not a rapist…
Exactly, and exactly why we see the formal definition changing.

Yelling at someone is not rape. But if a man screams at his wife as part of a pattern of behavior that seeks to force her to change her internal model of her self, the template of primitive behavior all of us are born with, then that is rape.

The problem is one of defining why rape is so much more devastating to the victim than other crimes, like simple assault.

If you look around a bit at what the people working on this are talking about in the last few years, you'll see a completely different definition evolving, one that avoids the problems that arise when we were simply saying that rape isn't about sex.

Remember, we're not talking about the legal definitions, as in what crime is committed under the law. That always lags the real world.


Quote:
If this is so and they are genetics, then they will be very difficult to change…
We don't need to change the genetics. We need to supercede it.

The problem is not that primitive behaviors have managed to select for so long, but what has selected to allow them to continue to flourish to this day.

As we humans have gained a modicum of free will and self-determination, the primitive behaviors that contradict those principles have managed to find ways to hide.

(It's all purely accidental, of course; there's no intent or purpose in selection itself.)

The problem has been one of escaping the process somehow. Whatever selected to allow the development of our current ideas about our selves and our personal freedoms took the same route as the mechanisms that hide the ugliness of the primitive strategy. We couldn't get away from them.

Now we're at a turning point, because the things that are happening to us that create AD/HD in the population are not like the process that would select yet another more sophisticated disguise for the primitive strategy.


Quote:
I believe -- and much current research would support my belief -- that genetics trumps environment most of the time…
We don't see that kind of consensus in the research community at all, quite the opposite, in fact.

But it doesn't really matter.

The understanding of the function of the brain needed to even address the question intelligently is exactly the same as it is for AD/HD, and the current state of the art is just beginning to see the problem, not even close to getting an understanding of it.

Our research popped out a funny answer to this, essentially mooting the whole nature-nurture question. Most of what you consider to be characteristics that make you and those around you identifiably human are not passed through the genes themselves.

Instead, there is an incredibly precise external mechanism that (in part) we recognize as the enculturation and socialization process, but extends to much more. This mechanism is only beginning to be recognized, although we saw research done at the University of Pittsburgh in the Sixties that addressed some of it.

What stopped the guy from Pitt cold was not being able to plug what his research identified into a reasonable model of the brain. We were looking at exactly the same problem in our research into human communications.

Things have come a long way since then, but the research community is still just beginning to put the pieces of the puzzle about the brain together. Kay and I are about five or six years ahead of the pack in this area.

Sometime in the next ten years, someone will probably resurrect the Pitt research and the whole thing will take off.


Quote:
When women behave submissively to men, it is often for very realistic, basic survival reasons. This behavior is learned and not inherited. Even if parents try their best not to teach this response, culture will teach it…
Yeah, but so what? The problem is not that it's taught, but rather that you can't stop it.

Think of it like this:

- the genetic mechanisms act to give you two different realities, and to keep you from ever realizing that;

- one is where you were when you wrote your post;

- the other can pop up at any time, and in it, you might think running off with the neighbor's husband seems like a fine idea;

- every male is born with the innate ability to push the buttons that cause that switch.


Think about this, too: all of the behaviors associated with the female version of the primitive strategy are about survival, exactly what you said.

Not one single impulse or behavior is associated with pleasure or pleasure seeking, except some extremely weak associations with behaviors that typically occur after everything's over. (We actually consider these to be corruption of normal self-integration behaviors.)

(In fact, part of the bag of tricks associated with male reproductive strategies is a mechanism that gives men two different measures of pleasure, one for sexual activity associated with the modern strategy, and another associated with the primitive strategy.)

(The one associated with the primitive strategy has selected to be incredibly short and not very satisfying. It's the primary cause of male sexual dysfunction not due to physical problems.)


Quote:
I am a feminist. I tried my best to rear my daughter to be a feminist. I do not believe she is a feminist. She is a pragmatist. She sees the lay of the land quite clearly in this respect. She will be supporting no more musician fellas. Instead, she now expects her man to support her. Will she pay a price? Of course she will. We pay a price for all our choices. There is no perfect trade-off.
Right, so lets avoid trade-offs entirely, then.

Lets take the whole system down, and put up something that makes sense. To be sure it's fair, let women define all of it, and control it after the fact. Then, if you want, you can share the control with someone you love.


Quote:
…anyone can be fooled by a practiced narcissistic sociopath -- even if they adopt your particular method of sorting the wheat from the chaff…
Nope, there's something different about what we're talking about, and the problem is words don't have the dimension to describe it explicitly.

But the mere fact that the discussion is underway is a sure sign that you all are experiencing the thing that is different in Kay and me, that let us decipher the conflicting nature of the two human reproductive strategies.

Think about it this way: if you can see that you can be fooled, you can see yourself being fooled. All you have to do is look. And the things that allow you to be fooled depend on you not seeing them at work.

That's why I keep saying we’re not stupid, because when you're looking right at them, you'll laugh out loud and marvel at the fact that it's so obvious. And, it's everywhere. We know this from experience, and we also know the transition might be a bit rocky.

The truth is, all you have to do is look, and the whole thing breaks. But what you see is scary, just what you said in your post, "…anyone can be fooled by a practiced narcissistic sociopath."

And we’re all selected to have an aversion to the view, too, so seeing the process at work is a doubly troubling experience. The aversion is how the black holes work, the way that the two contradictory patterns of behavior are hidden from each other.


Quote:
...What you are referring to are cultural messages. There are also urges -- including sexual urges that pull and tug at us. I do not classify these as intuition or the more commonly referred to "trust you instincts." I do not believe that women are as helpless here as you would like to have us believe. But any mind that tries to parse conflicting messages can become confused.
I wouldn't argue with most of that, because there's no point. We’re obviously talking about all of it, because that's what you rely on to make a decision, and we’re talking about you making a decision. Sometimes a good decision, sometimes a bad decision.

But the last bit is exactly what we’re on about. Conflicting messages = ambiguous data, and resolving ambiguity is at the heart of what is different in ADDers, as compared to normals.

The correct version of your last statement would be something like, "… any normal mind that tries to parse conflicting messages can become confused." But our ADDer minds can resolve the confusion easily, and all we have to do is learn to recognize when and how to turn on that ability.

That's what we’ve been talking about, but there aren't any good common descriptions of the process, so we have to use uncommon descriptions.

Read through our last few posts, and you'll see the different ways that we’re trying to describe two things: the problem with getting past the emotions associated with seeing these things in ourselves and others, and (mainly) the difficult to describe experience of seeing 'above' the problem, so the ambiguity is resolved.


Quote:
...For one thing, he correctly explains that orders of protection/restraining orders are often not worth the paper that they are written on…
Does he explain it, or only describe it? We can explain it, and it's really a difficult piece, because it involves being able to establish a mechanism by which police (for example) can be perfectly honest and serious about enforcing restraining orders, and then fail to do so, while still remaining exactly as serious and honest about their effort.

That's the male version of the two different realities I described above, and they are just as frustrated about it as you are, even though it stems from the same primitive mechanisms that cause the problem in the first place.

(The biggest b**ch about this stuff is that it sometimes makes you benevolent towards people you want to hate. Oh, well.)


Quote:
…de Becker encourages women to live in the real world…
But please realize that real isn't good enough, and some men urging this are trying to keep women from getting away.

We have to supercede the old realities, because they are all about creating the opportunity for these things to happen.


****

BTW, Kay is tied up with the state licensing survey of her facility for the next few days. She should be back putting her two cents in by the weekend.

--Tom
__________________
Peace. --TR =+= =+=

"There is no normal life, Wyatt.
There's just life. Get on with it."
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 03-23-05, 04:03 PM
crazymama05's Avatar
crazymama05 crazymama05 is offline
Forum Guru
 

Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 866
Thanks: 0
Thanked 9 Times in 6 Posts
crazymama05 has disabled reputation
This is getting good.

I think it's an important discussion. I do not agree that avoiding all men should be a part of it, though. I am not looking for one myself at the moment, but I definitely don't assume they are all representative of the same lack of character X displayed. That would make me an unacceptably judmental person in my own mind. I do not ascribe to living life with fear and negativity and bitterness and resentment. When I meet anyone, I do not assume that they are good or bad. I let them teach me.
I think this is the exception, not the rule. For an attorney to truly do his job well, guilt or innocence on the part of his client is irrelevant.

The solution is to make rape and abuse of all human beings, by any other human being, bring with it a penalty that cannot be bargained or pleaded.
This is a slippery slope. I truly agree with you, but to get there coud be dangerous. It can be impossible to prove without confessions that are bargained for. Do you not think some time is better then no time at all. And to put them away and throw away the key is saying, the cycle of abuse is irrelevant as well. Most abusers where abused themselves. It is the cycle that needs more attention. The cycle needs to be recognized and stopped.

So, how did it become the woman's job to "crack this mess open" and eradicate the abusers from the planet?

In my opinion, not enough women report abuse or rape. Reporting abuses is the only way to stop abuses. Nothing can be done without the prior knowledge of this horrible thing of abuse and rape. And statistically speaking, the percentage of woman as the abused is far higher then that of men being abused. So I do think that woman need to crack this wide open.

Guys getting stubborn is an understatement, but jerkwad will do...
This was just good!

It is literally not any man's fault that he is a rapist, any more than it is a woman's fault that she is a victim; it's our human heritage, hard as that may be to accept.

Ya, I have a real problem with this statement as well. Human heritage or not, men are not animals and are perfectly capable of not acting on his more primative nature. It is his choice to abuse, rape, beat, lose control of his temper. There are ways to learn how to control. If this is something the abuser "wants."

Free2beme, you are an incredible poster......you make some very astute observations. I also thank you for putting yourself out there and sharing your horrible experiences. I know that is not easy to do. Keep it up. I am so enjoying this thead and voluminous amount of great information.
__________________
My mind not only wanders, it sometimes leaves completely.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 03-23-05, 04:10 PM
crazymama05's Avatar
crazymama05 crazymama05 is offline
Forum Guru
 

Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 866
Thanks: 0
Thanked 9 Times in 6 Posts
crazymama05 has disabled reputation
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coral Rhedd
I am certain that Ohmama has her own take on this statement but it seems to me be doing exactly what you accuse abusers of doing: Trying to alter another person's sense of self.

When we attempt to tell someone what their memories are or how their memories are constructed, we are, in fact calling into question her statements about her reality. I think we must know someone really well to venture here.

Please remember how much recovered memories have been ridiculed by some who would like to call into question the testimony of victims of abuse.
We believe the truth of anything we perceive is what we can make sense of. What happens during rape has purposely selected over thousands of years to not have any sense at all, in the conventional way we think of things.


No means no. This redefinition of commonly used terms implies that every difference can be reduced to a matter of what words are chosen to describe experience. I don't think that that is what is happening in this discussion. I think there is a valid difference of opinion going on.


Could you please clarify what you are referring to in the above statement. Perhaps a plainer approach to language would help us all understand your POV better.
Weird, isn't it? The thing is, this is a literal, scientifically supported interpretation of what happens.


This is what predatory murderers do. They use the victim for sexual and power gratification in ways that can never be accomplished in the context of a relationship. They rehearse their actions, they ritualize the violating act itself so that if affords them the power they are seeking, and sometimes after their victim's death, they actually pose the body to illustrate their power over the victim and, by extension, over the police.


You may perceive men as desperate, but it does not make those who resort to violation any less culpable for their actions. To excuse them is to shred the fabric of those elements of culture that are important to conserve. When you set out to rebuild Rome, it sometimes makes sense to keep a few buildings.


There may be many reasons why freewill is limited, but before I could agree with you that "primitive mating strategy" is even one of these, I would have to see a much clearer definition of what it actually is, than (to my knowledge) you have currently given. For all I know, I might agree with much of what you have to say, if only you would more directly say it.

So far all I can glean is that you say the primitive mating strategy is rape. While I think this is an especially dark view of human history/prehistory, I don't see any reason to believe that it still must be. After all, we do evolve.

I do not believe many rapists are merely using a mating strategy. They need not strategize except to escape the consequence of their acts. They need only use force. No strategy necessary.


If you wish us to extrapolate from your personal experience, you would have to provide us more direct information about that experience, although, as different people, your's and Kay's experience cannot possibly be exactly the same.



Please see your words above. If it wasn't about sex, wasn't it about violence and, by extension, power.


If it is so adaptive (if it exists), how can it be a defect. Mutations are defects. Behavior traits that are nonadaptive are defects by definition.


Aren't you a man?

Then surely you are not the only one in existence evolved enough to be worth mating with.

There is something rather puzzling to me about your feeling about your own sex.

I also don't think women would necessarily end up happily mated if their main strategy were to look for the cad in every man.
Beautiful Coral. Absolutely perfect!
__________________
My mind not only wanders, it sometimes leaves completely.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 03-23-05, 11:49 PM
Stabile's Avatar
Stabile Stabile is offline
ADDvanced Forum ADDvocate
 

Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,729
Thanks: 2
Thanked 71 Times in 53 Posts
Stabile has a spectacular aura aboutStabile has a spectacular aura about
Yikes! I'm going to be at this all night. Fun, though…


Quote:
Originally Posted by Coral Rhedd
I am certain that Ohmama has her own take on this statement but it seems to me be doing exactly what you accuse abusers of doing: Trying to alter another person's sense of self.
No, we’re trying to point out to her how her sense of self works.

What we’re doing is like pointing out the Grand Canyon through the airplane window.

What a rapist is doing is like forcing you to want to look.


Quote:
When we attempt to tell someone what their memories are or how their memories are constructed, we are, in fact calling into question her statements about her reality…
Exactly so. But that's not our definition, it's the currently accepted understanding of the actual mechanism of memory.


Quote:
…I think we must know someone really well to venture here…
Nope, not at all. We have to know the human mind pretty well to venture here, but that's it. It’s just a description of function.


Quote:
…Please remember how much recovered memories have been ridiculed by some who would like to call into question the testimony of victims of abuse…
Yeah, and we are careful where we talk about this bit for exactly that reason.

But as long as you brought it up, you have to also reconcile all of the cases in which hard proof exists that the recovered memories were wrong.

The correct view of the underlying mechanisms allows you to explain how those kids at that day care center could have been right about being abused, and told a completely bogus story about what happened.

I have deep personal knowledge of exactly this sort of thing, and the first time I encountered it, it caused me no end of difficulty keeping my wits about me while it went on.

Listening to someone describe something you know isn't true while recognizing something that is true, what the person is actually trying to describe, is an unbelievably hard balancing act – reality flows like water around you.

None of this sort of thing is suitable for a court proceeding, for example, because the nature of reality in a courtroom demands constancy and commonality, or the whole thing turns into a useless, confusing mess.

And that's a pretty good description of the current sorry state of judicial proceedings in rape cases, don't you think?


Quote:
No means no. This redefinition of commonly used terms implies that every difference can be reduced to a matter of what words are chosen to describe experience. I don't think that that is what is happening in this discussion. I think there is a valid difference of opinion going on…
First off, in terms of rape, no obviously does not mean no. What planet were you on when that popped out? I'm certain we agree on that point.
We’re not at odds on this stuff at all, except that we’re trying to explain something new that helps resolve the confusion surrounding the subject.

We’re not trying to redefine words, except when we're specific about it. like in our working definition of rape. But we announce that, so you can see it coming.

So I'm not really sure what the valid difference of opinion is about. But if there's a difference, and it's really opinion, then of course it's valid.


Quote:
Quote:
In the usual circumstances, a person reconstructs an idea about her self and her experience that includes reasons for what she 'did'. The trick is, there is no reason, and 'she' didn't do anything. If anything of note happened at all, it was to someone else, temporarily constructed by her from her own mind and body under duress.
Could you please clarify what you are referring to in the above statement. Perhaps a plainer approach to language would help us all understand your POV better…
Sorry, but the available language is very limited for describing this stuff.

So how about an example?

* * * *

There was a recent case in New Jersey of a woman who went missing. Her car was found parked behind a Taco Bell, doors unlocked, her purse sitting on the seat with her keys and wallet in it.

She had apparently told her husband that she had a sudden craving for Mexican food, and ran out to catch the take out window before it closed.

After several days of frantic searching, she resurfaced in upper New York state, walking hurriedly along a highway in an incoherent state.

A male stopped to ask her if she wanted help, but she refused to speak to him, and just kept walking.

Two females stopped a few minutes later, and she gratefully accepted their offer of a ride to a nearby restaurant. She told the women she had been abducted, perhaps raped, but had managed to escape and needed to get home to New Jersey right away.

The women bought her tea and called the state police, who arrived and took a statement, then took her to headquarters for more questions and to help her contact her husband.

They also contacted the authorities in New Jersey, and slowly the whole story began to mutate. The local police were trying to contact (by cell phone) a man, an acquaintance from the woman's bowling league who had a cabin in Pennsylvania.

Eventually the woman recanted her accusations of rape and being abducted, but not before several days of extraordinary events.

Shortly after the woman appeared in New York, the New Jersey police succeeded in getting the man from the bowling league on his cell phone several times. They asked him to come in to talk to them about what had happened, and he promised to do that.

But every time they talked, he was driving in a different part of Pennsylvania, apparently not going anywhere specific.

What's more, he had a wife back in New Jersey, who told police and reporters he wasn't home, that she had no idea where he was, that he never did such a thing before, and no, she wasn't worried. She just kept washing dishes and dusting, nothing unusual here, boss.

It turns out that the woman's late night run to the Taco Bell was really a meeting with the guy, something that had happened perhaps several times before. In the end, she simply said it was just an affair, and she was charged with filing a false police report and tried in New York.

I don't know what the outcome of the trial was; the last news item I could find was that she was in New York for the court proceedings.

You should look this stuff up, because I'm doing it no service with this quick synopsis. PM me if you want her name to Google, but you probably have enough to find it without.

There are several points here. First, we believe that every word the woman uttered was an absolutely honest expression of what she believed was true at the time she said it.

Second, we don't see any contradiction in either her behavior or what she claimed happened to her, because we can track who it was said to and when in the whole process it was said.

And perhaps most important, we obviously see a mechanism at work in her mind that makes her statements seem sensible to us.

The whole story makes great sense to us, in fact, and it's just one of hundreds of similar stories that you could pick out of newspapers every day. What we see that's sensible is the whole pattern of her perception of the truth slowly changing as events unfolded.

And here's the real point: we know that no statement the woman makes or made can be trusted to accurately represent the truth of what she experienced, and because of that, we are absolutely certain she was raped.

* * * *

The problem with what the woman said about her experience is that the integrated model of her self that she used to generate the descriptions wasn't stable during the time she was experiencing them, and also that it passed through several stages of adjustment as it restabilized after the destabilizing events.

In real world terms, there is usually only one truthful model of your self, the thing you see as you in your conscious brain. That's the model you develop by experience as you follow your own freely determined path through life.

If a person is exposed to repeated traumatic events at a young enough age, the memories associated with the trauma can become so painful that a truly remarkable phenomenon occurs: the person abandons that model, and establishes a new one that is free of the painful memories.

This used to be referred to as MPD, Multiple Personality Disorder. We worked on this off and on for several years, identifying the mechanisms, which are primarily a form of dissociation.

(Dissociation isn't actually possible in neurons; the only thing they can do is associate. So the trick is using association to mimic dissociation, like putting up a sign that says "Here There Be Dragons!")

A few years after we had gotten the basics down, I was amused to see the DSM had changed the nomenclature for MPD to DID, Dissociative Identity Disorder.

The trauma of making that shift to a new self model in DID arises (in a sense) from the fact that the experience is very much like dying: your self is gone. The experience of a woman that has been raped is much the same, because underneath the surface similar conditions arise.

In DID, the decision to shift to a new self model is entirely in the hands of the victim. In rape, the decision is made by another, and the mechanisms internal to the victim activated to bring it about.

So there is a subtle difference right up front, in that a woman doesn't necessarily recognize herself as the agent of the change, even though she can see herself doing all the work.

Lets talk about that, the fact that she sees herself doing the work of changing her self model to suit the situation. What is that experience like?

The key to understanding how we experience events that we observe ourselves involved in is realizing that we first look for meaning and intent, and then construct a logically consistent framework for a scenario that fits what we've observed.

If that sound like we do stuff first and figure out what we did and why later, well, that's the way it really works. The conscious awareness of our own actions lags the reality of those actions by a slight amount.

When sophisticated detectors are used to look at both the decision to pick something up and the actual series of cerebellar commands that accomplish the action, the cerebellum rings in first, and the cerebrum, where the conscious memory of making the decision exists, comes in second.

None of this affects the way we actually do stuff, because our perception of cause and effect arises in the same place, so no lag exists. Clearly, though, the conscious mind is not the only or even the major player in how we do ordinary things.

And that's a good thing, too, because there are all manner of other animals about that can do pretty intelligent stuff without the same conscious faculties we enjoy.

So now, back to the experience of a women being forced to change her self model. There is only one way to interpret anything we observe, and that is to look for meaning in the situation. But when a woman is caught in the mechanisms associated with the primitive strategy, there isn't any reason for what takes place.

It's hard wired, and so therefore the actions and events that arise from it are essentially pristine, with no inherent meaning of any sort. We're not talking about big stuff here, just the smallest nudge towards doing something that isn't entirely in keeping with what the woman's self definition has been up until now.

All of the details, and the associated activity that we would recognize, like going to the Taco Bell, are all represented in a perfectly acceptable fashion already. So what happens is that they get strung together in the usual fashion, seeming to make sense except for the tiniest of details, the lack of an actual beginning event that is consistent with the woman's memories of her self.

As long as there are no big conflicts, this can go on for some time. I'm certain that the woman in New Jersey was a regular behind the Taco Bell, if she's typical, and everything about being there, meeting the married guy ten years her senior, seemed perfectly familiar, except for the nagging lack of a memory of how the whole thing got started.

I'm certain that a good bit of the guy's behavior was directed at smudging over that lack, providing a free running interpretation of how they connected at first sight, and couldn't keep themselves from admitting their attraction for each other, and so on. You've all heard every bit of it, sometime in your lives.

The thing about it is, there isn't any sexual urge associated with the female version of the primitive strategy. There never was one, in the sense we mean urge; the primitive strategy evolved during a time in which females were subject to a cycle of estrus that periodically took over control of the whole biological mechanism. 'Urges' weren't necessary, and so they never selected. Some joke, eh?

The illusion that there ever was a sexual urge is traditionally supplied by the 'safety patter' of the male, and it's applied when the woman looks back and tries to make sense out of her memories of what happened.

What typically precipitates the changes in the woman's perception of what she's experiencing is a conflict between her real life and the growing body of experience that provides inescapable evidence that she is no longer the same person that used to live that life.

Essentially, the contradictions get out of hand, and when she tries to resolve them, she suddenly sees the missing bit at the beginning. This implies an optimal time to strike for a male employing the primitive strategy, and many of the online 'how to nail any chick you want' websites used to talk about exactly that. (I don't know how many are still around.)

In the case of the woman from New Jersey, the most likely scenario is that she had that contradiction firmly in her sights and was pulling the plug; the guy either waited too long, or hadn't been able to get far enough to make a strike, or he just decided he didn't want to let go.

Whatever happened, he took off suddenly with the woman sitting in his car, and took her to his cabin in the Poconos. She described that, and he never denied it. But the police asked her why she didn't try to get away, try to jump out at a light or call out for help at a stop.

They actually asked her if the car ever stopped, knowing full well it did, and then asked why she didn't try to flee. The message is clear there: you weren't actually abducted, kid.

I'm sure this has grown a bit tiring, a familiar story nonetheless. Everybody's heard something similar, so why go on about it?

Because we're describing the way that the woman's self model, her reality, and her memories of that reality changed during the events she experienced, and when I lay it out like this, a sad but familiar tale, it doesn't seem odd at all, does it?

I don't know any women that have managed to escape having scrambled memories like these. It's not a big deal. What really matters to any of us is where we are, and how we feel about ourselves and our situation.

And that is something that we can address without worrying about the details of whether our little model of reality changes a bit from time to time. Like I said, no big deal.


Quote:
This is what predatory murderers do. They use the victim for sexual and power gratification in ways that can never be accomplished in the context of a relationship. They rehearse their actions, they ritualize the violating act itself so that if affords them the power they are seeking, and sometimes after their victim's death, they actually pose the body to illustrate their power over the victim and, by extension, over the police.
Yup. And it's all a whisper away, all the time. It's a wonder we’re civilized at all, isn't it?

Those same rehearsed, symbolic power rituals are a part of everybody's idea of safe sex, in some form. As a species we are all mixed up about this stuff, primitive and modern behaviors squooshed together randomly.

Kay and I can attest to the fact that untangling this is a real pain in the neck, or something. It takes effort and dedication, and if you slack off, you can lose your zest for expressing yourself intimately. So you keep at it, for sure.

I didn't say it was easy, did I? I thought I said this is difficult, and scary. It is, and I meant it. But it is sooo worth the effort…


Quote:
You may perceive men as desperate, but it does not make those who resort to violation any less culpable for their actions. To excuse them is to shred the fabric of those elements of culture that are important to conserve. When you set out to rebuild Rome, it sometimes makes sense to keep a few buildings…
Absolutely. Well said, and I couldn't agree with you more. If it seemed like I meant anything different, well, shame on me.


Quote:
There may be many reasons why freewill is limited, but before I could agree with you that "primitive mating strategy" is even one of these, I would have to see a much clearer definition of what it actually is, than (to my knowledge) you have currently given. For all I know, I might agree with much of what you have to say, if only you would more directly say it…
Right, that was you that PM'd us about that. I owe you a letter, which I ripped about thirty pages off on before I decided I was being too freely open about it all.

On extreme or the other. ADD, ADD, ADDDD… (to the tune of 'Jingle Bells")

Your point about not being forthcoming was well taken, and Kay and I discussed it quite a bit. These posts are partly due to that, so how are we doing so far?

Not good enough yet, though…


Quote:
So far all I can glean is that you say the primitive mating strategy is rape. While I think this is an especially dark view of human history/prehistory, I don't see any reason to believe that it still must be. After all, we do evolve.

I do not believe many rapists are merely using a mating strategy. They need not strategize except to escape the consequence of their acts. They need only use force. No strategy necessary.
OK. Well. We have written a great deal more about this in the forums, so maybe I can draw on that a bit.

What I said was the primitive strategy is based on rape, but there are some disclaimers here if we really want to be rigorous.

Firstly, it's improper to call the behaviors that the primitive strategy derives from in lower animals rape. Secondly, what constitutes a 'strategy' has to be clarified.

Think of it as a strategy 'used' by the species, and you're on the right track. It's defined on that level.

When we talk about behavioral strategies, we mean a collection of predefined (and possibly hardwired) drives, impulses, roles and goals that underlie behavior at a level far below even what you might call the unconscious.

Hunger is part of a survival strategy that drives us to seek food and shelter, for example, and there are other strategies that can be quite complex, such as the one that apparently causes us to form social groups.

The primitive strategy is a holdover from lower animal behavior in which the female literally has no choice, if the term choice is even applicable. So the behaviors associated with our human primitive strategy are based on a similar idea, that females have no choice.

Of course, today females do have choice, and are no more slaves to their biology than males. Things do evolve, and the primitive strategy evolved right along with everything else (Duh!), 'cause it’s still here.

Why it's still here is a different question. When something selects, it sticks around; there isn't any 'unselect' mechanism, because there isn't really any mechanism at all. Selection is an apparent property of a system that relies on reproduction in a context in which reproduction can have varying results, and those results can compete for a ticket into the next round.

That's all you need, roughly speaking, and what the system is made up of is totally inconsequential. It's all statistics; for example, there are several popular computer programming methodologies that allow software to adapt and evolve to better fit the task at hand. They call it 'genetic' programming.

Competition with another trait will cause something that has selected to disappear, and random mutation might conceivably 'off' a trait, but that's about it. There are lots of traits that are mysterious and (apparently) useless out there, sort of cosmic leftovers.

So once we had the primitive strategy, it shouldn't be expected to disappear spontaneously. But we do have another, demonstrably more successful strategy, and we might wonder why it didn't squeeze the primitive one out.

One possible reason is that the primitive strategy had to 'hide' as we became aware and developed things like opinions about right and wrong. It didn't do that literally, of course, but we did inherit serendipitous mechanisms that allowed the primitive strategy to escape our casual introspection.

I'll give a simple example. Suppose we develop a sense of right and wrong. How does our experience with the primitive strategy interact with that? As early adopters of the moral advantage cast their eyes about, they're going to see some things that are pretty ugly off in the direction of the primitive behaviors.

But that isn't exactly the same as seeing an ugly painting on the new cave wall, and painting something pretty over it. There is a cultural tradition of primitive behaviors, and looking away removes those, which is an implied slap in the face for anyone still using them.

So, social friction right from the start, and that's got it's own negative connotations, and social sanctions, and so on. What we’ve set up is a circumstance that allows just the tiniest advantage for someone that is able to somehow ignore the consequences of the primitive strategy, both in themselves and in the behavior they observe around them.

Is there a mechanism for that? You betcha, the same dissociative mechanism that is at work in DID, Dissociative Identity Disorder.
If something is unpleasant enough to cause an aversion to develop, that aversion can serve as the basis of a 'black hole' in our internal context, our view of our selves, others, and the world we all inhabit.

If that seems unlikely, it's probably because you recognize that blowing a hole in reality is too big a task for a simple aversion to handle, and you’re right. But it doesn't have to; all it has to do is suppress associations; keep them from forming while the context grows up around it, and Bingo! you've got a black hole.

That takes a while, of course, but we’re talking about at least a hundred thousand years here. Still, the whole thing seems a little light; we’re not stupid, and we do recognize the damage that primitive behaviors cause. There must be something else at work, something that accounts for why we didn’t dispose of it for good a long time ago.

We think there are two influences. One, we've independently derived a completely different time scale for the developing character of human awareness and self awareness that gives a unique perspective on the history of this stuff.

On our scale, we are just now beginning to be able to recognize and rid ourselves of this kind of unwanted evolutionary debris. So in that sense, this discussion is exactly the right thing, at the right time. And there are lots of other indications that our time scale is at least in the right ball park.

Why would we get the time scale wrong for something as obvious as the way we perceive reality? Because that is by definition something that both must be plastic, and also not seem so.

We really have no idea what it was like to be consciously aware even five thousand years ago; we just assume it must have been pretty much like what we experience now.

The other influence is more solid, in that it really exists and is something that should select. The modern strategy is based on selecting a mate that roughly matches your own status. We actually try to get as high a status as possible; we’re all ready to go for Johnny Depp or Charlize Theron if the opportunity was there, but we settle for someone that seems more likely to accept our attention.

The problem with this system is that it has a statistical flaw; it tends to concentrate the gene pool around those traits that determine higher status, to the detriment of lower status traits. And genetic diversity is a widely accepted Good Thing, one of the more exotic characteristics of a system, but under the right conditions expected to select nonetheless.

(Re)enter the primitive strategy, which is in a sense random with respect to status. It's real impact is to allow low status traits to break the rules, injecting themselves into the system at whatever status level the primitive kind of guy sets his eye on. So the primitive strategy can be seen as having a positive effect, if you're taking the species level view of things.

I should say something here about status as it's used in describing reproductive decisions. It is true that Johnny Depp and Charlize Theron have the ordinary kind of status you might talk about in casual conversation.

But you might be surprised to know that the traits associated with trivial surface impressions like beauty are co-resident with actual underlying traits that do directly affect the likelihood of reproductive success.

I'm not talking about things like 'we men like wide hips and narrow waists because they are physical characteristics of successful baby machines'. I'm talking about a weird effect of the way selection works that allows stuff like a cute nose to also indicate that a woman would be a good mom, reproductively speaking.

But in general, you need to keep your eye on the goal when talking about reproductive choices and status, which is getting healthy kids into play in the next generation.


Quote:
If you wish us to extrapolate from your personal experience, you would have to provide us more direct information about that experience, although, as different people, your's and Kay's experience cannot possibly be exactly the same…
That's not entirely true, and we have told you enough to understand what we mean when we extrapolate to the general case.

For example, the first time I go swimming I know something about the experience of getting wet that I can safely extrapolate to the general case or even your specific case without any controversy.

We only talk about things that are related to our specific experience in that way. Think of it as if we were explorers just returned from an expedition; we're telling you that you're going to see a pretty big canyon just over the next mountain range.

We're not telling you what your experience of seeing it for the first time will be, just that it's there, and you will have some experience generally related to ours. We often don't even say what our experience was, exactly, and I guess that's what you're talking about.

I'm not sure it's appropriate to say more, but we’re not hiding anything. Some things aren't possible to talk about specifically, for the same reasons we’ve been describing in these discussions. They didn't really happen to us, and we would be makin' whatever we said about 'em up on the spot.

That prospect no longer bothers us, though. After a time, it seems obvious that everything works that way. You just don't go places that aren't yours, just as you wouldn't bother to try to describe Johnny Depp's experience waking up in France on Wednesday.


Quote:
…Please see your words above. If it wasn't about sex, wasn't it about violence and, by extension, power…
Sorry, maybe I wasn't being clear. That's the way it looks to the rest of the world. We know it isn't actually like that.

Rape is about reproduction, no matter what, but you have to look at it from the species level to understand why we say that.

The reason we say it that way is to encourage others to find the view that fits. It's an indirect way to describe something, but as I said, we don't have words for much of this. That is also a species level perspective.

On a personal level, all the stuff about power and control are true, but acknowledging that exclusively leaves you nowhere to go to solve the basic problems. In a very real sense, this is the mistake that feminist philosophers made in the seventies and eighties.

Saying that rape is about power and then trying to empower women to prevent it had a limited effect on rape. It had a pretty neat effect on women, though, and we would never take that back. But it didn't get very far with real gender issues, and it eventually generated a backlash that really crippled the movement.

Things are starting to get better in that regard, I think.


Quote:
If it is so adaptive (if it exists), how can it be a defect. Mutations are defects. Behavior traits that are nonadaptive are defects by definition…
I think you mean that they're defective, in the sense that they can't adapt and so will fare poorly on the competitive field of life. But they're not necessarily a defect.

When we say defect, we do mean it lightly, because it's not a technical term. It refers to our own way of describing the way that the experience of living out life in a frail human vehicle requires understanding, if you want to survive it with your spirit intact.

We didn't choose what we have to cruise through life with, physically, spiritually, emotionally, or whatever else you want to include. We have to take what comes, and if it looks like a VW Microbus, then you know it has kingpins instead of ball joints.

What that means is this: Volkswagen kingpins wear out, and when they do, your car will shake like it's got epilepsy when it hits a bump at certain speeds. If that bothers you, you will eat yourself up over it, because it can't be helped.

All you can do is slow down, avoid that particular speed, and get the kingpins replaced. But they are going to wear out again, and there is absolutely nothing you can do about the whole thing.

Our frail human vehicles all have defects like that. We've got to learn to accept them and devise strategies to safely coexist with them, or they will get us, one way or another.


Quote:
Aren't you a man?

Then surely you are not the only one in existence evolved enough to be worth mating with.

There is something rather puzzling to me about your feeling about your own sex…
I'm not sure you meant to leap in that direction, kiddo, but that's OK. Truth is, I'm no longer someone that can be correctly described as having a worth, in the mating sense.

We both worked our butts off to get to that point, along with a lot of other much more important stuff. The fact that I'm truly not available, not just out of reach but truly outside the game itself, isn't really all that interesting, especially to other men. It just makes them nervous.

And that right there is the reason why, because 99% of the population will correctly understand any statement like that as a declaration of how truly suitable I am. It is, in context, but I'm outside that, so it isn't a declaration of anything associated with reproduction by definition.

I don't really think about it, but I expect I'm not really all that attractive on the surface anymore, what with a bunch of years under the belt and so on. But it doesn't seem to matter, and that fact is downright annoying at times.

Something about not being available seems to signal more than just the ordinary 'want what you can't have' covetous impulses. We think it's something deeper, like the fact that if I'm really outside the game, I present no threat from primitive behaviors by definition.

But my attitude towards men is easy to explain. It isn't hard to do my part of it, deciding that you won't play the game because it’s rigged. I have no time for men that fail to do that.

Lots of good men have made that decision, but it's hard to talk about and even harder to accomplish; so much of it is embedded in cultural expectations that some element is always sneaking up on you.

And you really need a good woman to share it with, or you'll never find out what worked and what didn't and what still needs a bit of tweaking.


Quote:
I also don't think women would necessarily end up happily mated if their main strategy were to look for the cad in every man…
Well, suppose you really have a hankerin' for chocolates with soft centers. When you bite one, aren't you looking for the nuts, so you can throw 'em away?
__________________
Peace. --TR =+= =+=

"There is no normal life, Wyatt.
There's just life. Get on with it."

Last edited by Stabile; 03-23-05 at 11:52 PM.. Reason: sp.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 03-23-05, 11:52 PM
SOX911's Avatar
SOX911 SOX911 is offline
Jr Member
 

Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Montana
Posts: 24
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
SOX911 is on a distinguished road
Pretty Women wonder where my secret lies

I'm not cute or built to suit a model's fashion size
But when I start to tell them
They think I'm telling lies.
I say
It's in the reach of my arms
The span of my hips
The stride of my steps
The curl of my lips.
I'm a woman
Phenomenally
Phenomenal woman
That's me .

I walk into a room
Just as cool as you please
And to a man
The fellows stand or
Fall down on their knees
Then they swarm around me
A hive of honey bees.
I say
It's the fire in my eyes
And the flash of my teeth
The swing of my waist
And the Joy in my feet.
I'm a woman
Phenomenally
Phenomenal woman
That's me.

Men themselves have wondered

What they see in me
They try so much
But they can't touch
My inner mystery.
When I try to show them
They say they still can't see.
I say
It's in the arch of my back
The sun of my smile
The ride of my breasts
The grace of my style.
I'm a woman
Phenomenally
Phenomenal woman
That's me

.
Now you understand
Just why my head's not bowed
I don't shout or jump about
Or have to talk real loud
When you see me passing
It ought to make you proud.
I say It's in the click of my heels
The bend of my hair
The palm of my hand
The need for my care.
'Cause I'm a woman
Phenomenally
Phenomenal woman
That's me.

I just love this poem.. Maya Angelou Phenomenal
and I think sometimes women and men too but this poem is a woman poem lol I just think that we forget we are Phenomenal and we forget to let ourselves be that sometimes and lessen ourselves for someone else..
eventually thank goodness we remember we are all goddesses and return to our senses and all is back to how it should be
And for the men unfortunately I dont have a woohoo men are awesome poem at the moment but in all fairness.. men get emotionally abused just as often
unfortunately
I just wish sometimes that we could i dont know just all play nice in the sandbox you know.
I know im guilty of it sometimes with my boyfriend .. i get upset and hurt and I push all the buttons when i should be a grown up and just communicate
<

Last edited by SOX911; 03-23-05 at 11:53 PM.. Reason: take out link accidentally copied
Reply With Quote
  #41  
Old 03-24-05, 01:19 AM
crazymama05's Avatar
crazymama05 crazymama05 is offline
Forum Guru
 

Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 866
Thanks: 0
Thanked 9 Times in 6 Posts
crazymama05 has disabled reputation
Stabil,

I am too tired to address all of your "points." But I will say that you couldnt be more wrong. I think that you have spent too much time, (since you were what, seven or eight) analyzing the human condition, that you forgot to be human. I hear mostly rhetoric and psycho-babble. Your intellect is well documented, but I fear you have not bothered to live a life but rather, thought it to death.

I will say, No means No. I dont get what you are trying to say in that respect. It couldnt be anymore simple then no means no.

Not everyone will fit into your neat little box. I do know exactly what happened, and exactly what I was thinking when I was attacked. Both times as a matter of fact. The first time, I was raped by my boyfriend who was ****ed I broke up with him. For me it was, ok, whatever, it aint anything I aint already gave him. The second was my friends Dad, and yes, part of me was saying this is not ok, (brain-logic) and the other part was saying, no, he wouldnt do this not my friends Dad. (heart, emotion) The voices, or gut feelings are just that, plain and simple, head vs heart, or the logical vs the illogical.

You made me doubt myself, and shame on both of us for that. Many men like you, that can talk a big game have made me feel like that, but not anymore, at least for any extended period of time. (still takes time for me to digest information)

I appreciate you are a researcher, this is what you do, but why torture the rest of us with something that is beyond comprehension. This started out with someone trying to help and warn the rest of us about abusers and rapists. You turned it into some research project with us as guinea pigs. Please stop, and just speak normal, english with us will you. Not everything needs to be so complicated. Have a beer and go sing some kaoroke. (SP) Its a good way to get to know yourself.....your true self!
__________________
My mind not only wanders, it sometimes leaves completely.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to crazymama05 For This Useful Post:
Crazygirl79 (08-08-13)
  #42  
Old 03-24-05, 10:23 AM
Stabile's Avatar
Stabile Stabile is offline
ADDvanced Forum ADDvocate
 

Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,729
Thanks: 2
Thanked 71 Times in 53 Posts
Stabile has a spectacular aura aboutStabile has a spectacular aura about
I'm sorry you feel that way.

There isn't any part of me or Kay in what you say you see in our posts.

If you think what we wrote made you doubt yourself in some way, maybe there is something there (in yourself) that you might want to try to get in touch with.

That's not for us to say. What we set out to do was gently point out the folly of depending on labels like 'narcissist' to judge people.

We didn't attack the idea of looking for signs of danger, but we know from experience not so different than yours that it's hopeless to try to judge people by your gut instinct alone, because your stomach lies to you, like everybody's does. (Courtesy of James Thurber, Thirteen Clocks.)

We aren't so different, even if we drink Mescal straight from the bottle (instead of beer) and I play pretty good electric blues guitar (instead of Karaoke).

Coral Rhedd (and others) have noted we refer to things we don't elucidate. We elucidated, and you perhaps were a little lost in what we said.

But we’re not hopelessly lost in logic, as you imply, and we certainly didn't torture anybody.

I'm sorry you're feeling these things. I suspect these are emotions that didn't really originate with our post.

You have our sympathy.

Good Luck. –Tom and Kay
__________________
Peace. --TR =+= =+=

"There is no normal life, Wyatt.
There's just life. Get on with it."
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 03-24-05, 01:21 PM
crazymama05's Avatar
crazymama05 crazymama05 is offline
Forum Guru
 

Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 866
Thanks: 0
Thanked 9 Times in 6 Posts
crazymama05 has disabled reputation
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stabile
I'm sorry you feel that way.

**Im sorry to, I like reading your posts, they make me think.

There isn't any part of me or Kay in what you say you see in our posts.

**Maybe not, but I do notice a tendancy to post on the more serious side of issues. I have never heard any jokes from you. Unless I missed one somewhere. I believe I misrepresented my thoughts, this was not meant to sound like a personal attack. Just more of an observation.

If you think what we wrote made you doubt yourself in some way, maybe there is something there (in yourself) that you might want to try to get in touch with.

**These are the kinds of statements that bother me. I am very in touch with myself. Things that bother others to their very core are not the same things that hurt me. It isnt the act, it is the intention. And maybe in that, I am too forgiving. It isnt the sex part that hurt me. I am able to make sex mean something or nothing. It is my very soul (for lack of a better term) my core sense of self that was most violated. Abusing my trust and good nature. But then again, what happened happened, there is nothing I can do about it now but look forward to better days, and revel in the fact that I am happy now, and life is very good to me.

That's not for us to say. What we set out to do was gently point out the folly of depending on labels like 'narcissist' to judge people.

**I have not depended on labels. It is a general overview of the person. But I must admit, for me, it is not something that can be figured out on a first date.

We didn't attack the idea of looking for signs of danger, but we know from experience not so different than yours that it's hopeless to try to judge people by your gut instinct alone, because your stomach lies to you, like everybody's does. (Courtesy of James Thurber, Thirteen Clocks.)

**I still disagree with not trusting instincts. I just believe some ppl's are better then others, more apparent, and "speak" much louder. You dont have to believe in it, but I do and that wont change.

We aren't so different, even if we drink Mescal straight from the bottle (instead of beer) and I play pretty good electric blues guitar (instead of Karaoke).

**The reason I suggested Karaoke, was because you really have to put yourself out there to do something like that. And kudos on the blues, they are one of my favs. I just wanted to try to get you to lighten up. I generally percieve ppl of your intellect wound a little tight. No offense. What you do, the research and all, is very important, and I thank you for doing it, but I think you dont know how to really let go and whoop it up! And you are missing out Im telling ya. There is nothing more liberating and empowering then making a complete a** of yourself and having a really good time and not caring what others think. It is such a great relief to the mind!!!

Coral Rhedd (and others) have noted we refer to things we don't elucidate. We elucidated, and you perhaps were a little lost in what we said.

**I do not know what elucidate means. And it is not in my websters dictionary....did you make that word up?

But we’re not hopelessly lost in logic, as you imply, and we certainly didn't torture anybody.

**My sincerest apologies at this statement of torture. Very poor choice of words on my part. You are right, you do not torture. I was out of line here. I was very tired last night......and a little grumpy. Not as an excuse, but more an explaination.

I'm sorry you're feeling these things. I suspect these are emotions that didn't really originate with our post.

**Unfortunately, yes, my feelings did originate with your posts. It just takes some time for me to digest certain information. The language you use is something that easily confuses me, so I have to do a lot fo sifting and rereading.

You have our sympathy.

**I do not know any other way to say this, and I mean as little offense as possible, but I find this rather condescending. The thought behind it maybe pure, but I dont need sympathy. I know what is real and what is not. I know when I am lieing to myself and when I am truthful. I have good days and bad, like anyone else, but I am in tune to me and not in need of anyones sympathies. Compassion, Empathy, kindness, understanding, but not sympathy.

Good Luck. –Tom and Kay
**This I found genuine, but again, I dont need luck either. My life is awesome, except for the ADD. I am learning much about it just by being here, and even discussing things with you. My comprehension is improving.

Anyway, thank you for the response.

Have a beautious day!!
Ronee
__________________
My mind not only wanders, it sometimes leaves completely.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 03-24-05, 04:17 PM
Stabile's Avatar
Stabile Stabile is offline
ADDvanced Forum ADDvocate
 

Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,729
Thanks: 2
Thanked 71 Times in 53 Posts
Stabile has a spectacular aura aboutStabile has a spectacular aura about
That did make my day. Thanks.
__________________
Peace. --TR =+= =+=

"There is no normal life, Wyatt.
There's just life. Get on with it."
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 03-24-05, 05:11 PM
crazymama05's Avatar
crazymama05 crazymama05 is offline
Forum Guru
 

Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 866
Thanks: 0
Thanked 9 Times in 6 Posts
crazymama05 has disabled reputation
No problem. I aim to make 'em smile. I know, I know, its a gift.......
__________________
My mind not only wanders, it sometimes leaves completely.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Further Discussion split off from "How To Spot An Abuser - For Men" StanleyW Relationships & Social Issues 68 11-29-17 04:56 PM
Your Birth Date clawless Chit-Chat 22 01-10-10 07:41 PM
A memorable first date !!! Garry Chit-Chat 1 11-06-05 04:21 PM
Best Date??? joanrdtobe Relationships & Social Issues 4 06-02-03 02:27 PM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:09 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
(c) 2003 - 2015 ADD Forums