Voicelessness and Emotional Survival Message Board
Voicelessness and Emotional Survival => Voicelessness and Emotional Survival Message Board => Topic started by: Gaining Strength on August 11, 2007, 11:48:16 PM
-
One of the things the irks me the most about my mother is her complete lack of boundaries. Her violations are real button pushers.
But here is another boundary problem I have. I received this e-mail today from a guy I know. He has expressed interest in my for almost a year and although I like him I am not interested in having a romantic relationship of any kind. I posted part of one of his e-mails to me back in March and got alot of "better beware" feedback.
What do you make of this: I bumped into him a few weeks ago. We talked. Always about the same sorts of things: science, the mind, the soul. He was talking about the "mind's eye" and the breath. He asked if he could come by and bring some books about breathing exercises. "Sure!" I said. So he did. The last book he showed me was one with "couples" exercises with illustrations of a male and female hugging and "breathing." I didn't really respond and haven't yet. It actually sort of irritated me because I have repeatedly made it clear that I was not interested in having any kind of a romantic invovlement.
Here's part of today's e-mail:
When you were looking at the breath book, you asked me what hugging had to
do with breathing. Breathing is a part of all that we do. It is possible to stop
anything one is doing and do something else, however when breathing stops, life
is at an end and nothing else is possible. It is important that we be aware of
our breathing in all that we do, it is an exercise called “minding the breath”.
Physical contact is one of the essential things necessary for survival. It
was determinded that if children are not held and loved when they are babies
only have a 5-15% chance of survival. The ones that do live are typically
without conscious or remorse and are incapable of showing love or affection. .
They sometimes become psychopathic killers. And virtually none ever adjust to
society. Hugging and loving then are also essential to survival, as essential as
breath itself.
Normally we associate hugging and loving with romantic relationships however
that does not have to be the only way in which we can do this. Shared exercise
has been around for thousands of years and is a method by which to share the
essence of life, breath. It is a way to become one with others that does not
involve sexual activity, or commitment.
Barriers and boundries are for protection from harm. Frequently however
barriers and boundries serve to protect ourselves from what is good as well as
what is bad. It is then, that we should carefully question ouselves as to what
we are protecting ourselves from. If we are protecting ourselves from physical
harm or finaincial ruin we are justified, however if we are trying to protect
ourselves from emotional harm, then we are misplaced in our efforts. Emotional
harm is only in the mind and is a result of our own delusions about what is
right.
Shared exercise is only a small part of the totality of the practices. There
are many different practices to alleviate depression (which we both suffer
from), strengthen the organs, and increase health. We can proceed along any
line of inquiry you are interested. As a part of my practice I am trying not to
have a particular goal or agenda. As a result of this I am free to move in any
direction with the practices. I have my own personal exercises I am working on,
however they may not be the best ones for other people. This will also allow me
to explore areas I might miss in my my own practice as my course will be
determined by others and not by my own self.
The picture that I am sending you is significiant for several reasons. It
represents a balanceing of male and female energies. Since the male and female
are clothed, it is know that intimacy is not required to awaken the serpent. (
Kundalina energy located at the base of the spine and in the pelvic floor.) This
energy travels upward to the brain through the reptilain brain (triangle) and
into the pineal gland represented by the circle in a circle.. Here a single
mind if formed, a union of male and female enrgies making a complete whole.
You have seen for yourself that the combined efforts of two people are more
than four times the amount of one person alone. It also follows that the
combined efforts of two minds and two hearts are more than four times greater
than the efforts of one mind and one heart.
Love, Paul
My last experience with him - the "couples breathing exercise" book and this e-mail irritate me. It feels the same way I feel when my mother steps over the boundaries. I know these are outrageous boundary violations but I'm curious how some of my Voicelessness friends see it. What is going on with this guy? Should I even respond or just let it go. I realize he is NOT going to get my message about being friends. There's no point in trying to explain to him WHY I don't want to participate in these "union" exercises.
I am a little surprised about my strong irritation about his message. Any thoughts?
-
Lol. I'd be irritated too, Gaining Strength. I don't like that style of dealing with rejection, but I guess I can understand that the male ego is fragile.
To me, his letter came across as condescending and a tad manipulative, don't you think? Its almost as though he's try to spellbind you with his greater knowledge of tantric bonding and mystical serpant tails and what not, get you to accept his greater authority, so that you'll do all these close-contact excercises with him (which do not feel right for you, considering the boundary you set with him).
From the length of the letter, and the detail he went into about babies the importance of intimate contact, it seems like he wants you to think you rejected him because of a problem with you. (lol)
But don't worry, Gaining Strength. He will help you get over this hump. You will mend your ways. Face it: all will be solved if you give him more hugs and do some tantra with him.
(Sorry, i know he is your friend, but all I hear from him is `boo-hoo. I was rejected and I don't want to think its me. Its because she has issues, and i will fix them and then we'll have babies! Yeah!!)
-
Hi GS,
It gives me an oppressed feeling. I think he is a controller. And yes, as Bella says, condescending. Batten down the boundaries girl!
tt
-
Sounds like to me, your own feelings are trying to tell you something. I think perhaps you already know the answer to your question. If you feel creepy about him, then he is probably creepy! Follow your gut!!! You deserve the best and shouldn't be responsible for taking care of making him feel comfortable while you are trying to say no thank you and goodbye. If he can't handle you saying no....he can just go hug himself! And you can go and get a manicure!
pops
-
"it is know that intimacy is not required to awaken the serpent"
Sounds like his serpent is already awake GS... How very ugh I can't even think of an appropriate word..
Anyway the words that come to mind when I read his email are arrogant, patronising, contolling manipulative and downright creepy.. Your intuition appears to be screaming at you here... Always listen.
Love,
Spyralle x
-
Gaining Strength,
His email gave me the creeps.
If 'physical' stuff like hugging isn't a problem FOR HIM, then suggest that he tries this first with another MAN...and watch him disappear over the horizon!!
Trust your instincts. If you want no romantic relationship with him, that's fine. FOR YOU. What he wants doesn't have to be the same, but the HAS TO respect your decision.
If he's this controlling now, it'd only get worse, IMO.
Keep yourself safe, please.
Janet
-
Dear GS,
The next thing that you are going to get in the mail is the Kama Sutra.I agree with Spy. It is about his serpent. RUN,RUN, RUN. Give him up-- TOTALLY-- yesterday Love Ami
-
GS, hon,
I ditto everybody: condescending, controlling, using spiritual "lingo" to control and hopefully seduce. Iccccckk. Not listening to you, not aware, too much ego. Vocabulary of spirituality does not make a person truly spiritual.
I find self-annointed spiritual "mentors" with their special knowledge very very very annoying.
I would be tempted to tell him, I am so excited about my new spiritual path and I want to share it with you. Here, I've made us an appointment at the nearest Scientology center. Let's read all of L. Ron Hubbard's works together and then go get engrammed or whatever that is.
Yuck.
Hops
-
Oh GS....
I think I'll just say it one more time.
If a man tries to change your NO.....
into a YES....
it's a red flag: /
Idonlikeit :?
-
Ummmmm, I read the man's email to you. It didn't give me the creeps at all. He is obviously a firm believer in some Hindu/new age type teachings and practices that GREATLY CONFLICT with my spiritual ones.
This man sincerely believes that he is supposed to bond with EVERYONE through hugging and breathing practices. That is a large part of some mid-eastern philosophies.
All I have to say is, I live my life as best as I can, according to the Bible, and, from what I know, "becoming ONE" is something a male and female are to do, ONLY IN THE BONDS OF MARRIAGE, period! You are not supposed to be "meshing" with your friends, your family or others in this way AT ALL! I think this guy will try and walk through ANY open door you give him, merely because you agreed to hear him out in the first place. The whole point of such "religions" is to infiltrate society and all of the world with their teachings and practices.
If you find his beliefs offensive, simply tell him, "I do not want to hear any more about this. I choose to believe differently." I don't see him violating your boundaries, as much as just trying desperately to "save your "soul" "chakra" or whatever you want to call it, by his very intimate belief-system.
Just a different slant on it all, I spose.
~Laura
-
Hello Gaining Strength,
You said that those were outrageous boundary violations. You also said he is not going to get your message about not being friends. You did say you liked him. You asked what is going on with this guy.
Dearest GS, what is going on with you? What are you confused about? You don't have to explain why you don't want to participate in the "union" exercises. Do you feel you owe him that because he is your friend?
IMO, someone being a guru is unable to see or hear you because their wisdom drowns out any other knowledge, whether it comes from others or the part of self that they ignore. They are unable to reflect because they are blinded by the shine of their wisdom.
You, GS, are able to take things in from many sources. I will be waiting to see what answers you find that will serve you best.
cats paw
-
Reallyme,
What I found creepy about the man's email what not his 'spritual' angle (if that's what he would call it), but the fact that he's SAYING it's spiritually-based, when really that's a ruse to encroach on Gaining Strength's quite legitimate boundaries.
Eastern religions and New Age philosopies IN THEMSELVES are not dangerous (and their followers are not 'trying to take over the world' either, IMO) - unless they are used as an *excuse* for something which real adherents to those ideas would find abhorent.
I don't think this man HAS a *valid* 'belief system', intimate or otherwise - he is using that idea as a trick to manipulate Gaining Strength, given half a chance.
Janet
-
I have to disagree with you Janet LG. New-age people will openly ADMIT that they are trying to unite all the world in a ONENESS "spiritually"
As far as this man, I do see what you mean about him using his "beliefs" to manipulate our VBoard friend.
~Laura
-
Reallyme,
You said : "New-age people will openly ADMIT that they are trying to unite all the world in a ONENESS "spiritually""
What, ALL of them 'admit' that?!! The term 'New Age' is a hugely broad term, applied to a very disparate group of people, usually by others, so I'm not sure which actual sub-division you are referring to. Are you saying that, in contrast, some Christian denominations DON'T try to convert people (which could be seen, by non-Christians, as 'trying to take over the world'), too?
'Unite' and 'take over' are very different terms, too. As are Hindu and New Age...just ask a someone from the Hindu faith!
Before you ask, I'm a Christian, too.
What I was pointing out re. this creepy man, was that I don't think he sincerely holds 'beliefs', New Age or not - he's just using some information he's got hold of in order to control others, given half a chance.
Janet
-
a tad manipulative
LOL yep - a tad!
I don't like that style of dealing with rejection
Aha!! - that's what it is. I didn't quite get it.
your own feelings are trying to tell you something.
Oh yes and I do get that message loud and clear.
he can just go hug himself!
LOL
too inappropriate
Absolutely!!
"it is know that intimacy is not required to awaken the serpent"
I actually had not read the last couple of paragraphs until I posted it. The first part got me enough.
But still I missed the obvious fallic image LOL! I think I'll pass.
If 'physical' stuff like hugging isn't a problem FOR HIM, then suggest that he tries this first with another MAN...and watch him disappear over the horizon!!
LOL - or someone else's wife -
It is about his serpent.
And I'm really not interested in his serpent!! LOL
I've made us an appointment at the nearest Scientology center.
LOL
it's a red flag:
bond with EVERYONE through hugging and breathing practices.
somehow I missed that EVERYONE concept - he's welcome to bond with EVERYONE besides me.
What are you confused about?
same old stuff - I like the guy - the same way I liked him when he was married - and I (fallaciously) believe that if I am clear enough about my boundaries he will get it. NOT
He sounds needy and desperate for female touch and energy.
Yep.
Thanks for your feedback. I get it.
I really like this guy. He is bright and very interesting to talk to. I loved the idea of having a friend who is male and because he said that's what he wanted too I got stuck on that despite the rest of the message. That is old stuff for me but I wasn't confused about the boundary violations - when I was younger I would have not understood even that.
This is the line that makes me angry:
"if we are trying to protect
ourselves from emotional harm, then we are misplaced in our efforts. Emotional
harm is only in the mind and is a result of our own delusions about what is
right."
That's the manipulation that is outrageous. It reminds me of a svengali, cult leader type line.
But nobody answers the question about what to do. Give a response or just let it go. I am not going to get into an argument with him. If I responded that the boundary violation or the physical intimacy of the "breathing" exercises were too much I'm sure he would follow up with an argument. I'm not going there. I do get why I'm angry now - once again the guy just isn't listening to me and is generating a logic for which a NO is b/c of something wrong with me "delusions about what is right" - DELUSIONAL!!! No wonder I'm angry. He foresaw my objection to his pursuit - boundary violation - and argued that my objection was DELUSIONAL. Boy have I experienced too much of that kind of stuff in my life. Thanks to all for helping me sort this out. DELUSIONAL Boy does that make me mad!
-
There was a spate of these self-styled gurus a couple of decades back, but the basic move has been put on women (and men) since the beginning of time. Sometimes doctors, priests, elders and others use this tactic- some people even set up their own religions so that they can "teach", "purify" and "enlighten" others. Using email to groom potential disciples though is new to me (probably won't catch on- doesn't appear to be an effective method to worm one's way into someone's affections, but you never know- the pet rock was profitable for a time). The part about about the "Snake" kills me!!! Oh, LORDY- SO HILARIOUS!!! :lol: :lol: :lol:
Gaining Strength, Paul picked the wrong target! Maybe you can write a comedy screenplay about this (Cohen Brothers?)
Next time you go out with a man that you genuinely like, poof! the memory of this will fade into the ether, like magic!
Love,
Changing
-
The last book he showed me was one with "couples" exercises with illustrations of a male and female hugging and "breathing." I didn't really respond and haven't yet. It actually sort of irritated me because I have repeatedly made it clear that I was not interested in having any kind of a romantic invovlement.
:? I bet'cha 50 bucks he isn't showing that 'couples breathing' book to men.
Esp those he'sa asked out on a date......
and been turned down by, lol.
What say you, GS?
::slapping knee::
I just crack myself up, lol.
::ahem::
Don't let anyone talk you into cuddling up to this guy.... you can breath just fine on your own.
Trust your gut (read that as creep meter) and don't let him take up too much of your time.
-
Scientology???????
If he threw THAT at me while attempting to manipulate me to do what he wants....I would RUN, as FAST as possible, AWAY from him!!!!!!! To me, that is a RED FLAG!!!
Bones
-
Okay - here's what I wrote back. I'll entertain any Monday morning quaterback comments. This has actually turned from utter frustration to a form of entertainment thanks to this group of fun loving characters. Now Authentic I suspect you are going to be saying I told you so when I get his response but I just couldn't help it - I had to say something.
Paul,
... I have to take issue with some points on your e-mail. I'll address one
here. You wrote, "Barriers and boundries are for protection from harm.
Frequently however barriers and boundries serve to protect ourselves from what
is good as well as what is bad. It is then, that we should carefully question
ouselves as to what we are protecting ourselves from. If we are protecting
ourselves from physical harm or finaincial ruin we are justified, however if we
are trying to protect
ourselves from emotional harm, then we are misplaced in our efforts. Emotional
harm is only in the mind and is a result of our own delusions about what is
right."
Here is my problem. I don't have the interest nor the inclination to get
involved. The "couples" exercises are not something that interest me. My
boundary is set but according to your logic the only legitimate boundary is as
protection from physical or financial harm because emotional harm is a delusion.
Therefore - the only reasonable response is - yeah let's go for it. Well my
answer is, "No. That's not for me." I find your reasoning about boundaries,
manipulative. I suspect you aren't aware of it but I ran it by a couple of
friends who saw your words manipulative as well.
I like you, I've enjoyed our conversations but I'm not interested in getting
involved. I have too much on my plate. I am reserving all of my time and
energy for my son and my work. Part of the interior work I have done in recent
years has been specifically about boundaries. This is a particularly
significant issue for me and I simply disagree with you unequivocally about
"emotional harm." Your e-mail is a red flag for me and I must politely bur
firmly decline your offer.
I have enjoyed our conversations about our mutual interests and I admire much
about you, but I have no interests in anything tantric nor in any kind of
couples' exercises. We've actually crossed a point of interest and comfort for
me. It happened some time ago but I couldn't quite put my finger on it until
now. I'm glad I can articulate it and be clear.
That's what I said. I'm sorry but not really surprised that the concept of this friendship is illusory. I really appreciate your help in getting it clear about what bothered me. It is really no loss and just a blip on the scale of disappointment. It's just too bad. A friendship could have been nice. But that poor old snake is going to have to remain dormant for a while I guess.
The good news for me is that my antennae are working. That is very good news. It gives me a little confidence to consider venturing out into this world. Thanks - GS
Bones - HE didn't say scientology. Hops thought I might say it to HIM!! And just for the reaction you described. Too bad poor old Katie Holmes didn't see that red flag! LOL
-
But that poor old snake is going to have to remain dormant for a while I guess.
Heh..... remain dormant, lol.
It was certainly fun to watch you get clear on your feelings then act on them.....
the best!
-
Thanks lighter. The responses moved me from frustrated to LOL. I love that new perspective.
-
GS,
Lord I wish I could write like you. You explained your position (no pun intended) so well to him. I'm glad you're able to see the humorous side of this exchange. :) :lol:
tt
-
This is the line that makes me angry:
"if we are trying to protect
ourselves from emotional harm, then we are misplaced in our efforts. Emotional
harm is only in the mind and is a result of our own delusions about what is
right."
That's the manipulation that is outrageous. It reminds me of a svengali, cult leader type line.
Dear GS,
Me, too!!
As you've written, "I do get why I'm angry now - once again the guy just isn't listening to me and is generating a logic for which a NO is b/c of something wrong with me "delusions about what is right" - DELUSIONAL!!! No wonder I'm angry. He foresaw my objection to his pursuit - boundary violation - and argued that my objection was DELUSIONAL. Boy have I experienced too much of that kind of stuff in my life."
Exactly. There's something too calculated in that for comfort. I'm very interested to hear how he responds to your reply!
Hope
-
Lord I wish I could write like you.
Wow Teartracks - that is so nice of you. I did know I could write particularly well. Thanks for saying that.
I think the tantric thingy or couple's exercise, whatever, could be replaced with a lot of things that "friends" ask us to do...
I don't think this negates the friendship, however.
Yes Bean I agree with both points.
I'm very interested to hear how he responds to your reply!
I am too Certain Hope. I've had a sinking feeling that I got too caught up in the fun on this thread and resonded too harshly. You and Bean and Teartracks help me feel better about it though. This has really been a good experience for me. I feel like a teenager with a group of friends to turn to to help me figure out a boy problem. It was fun to laugh and talk like kids. I missed out on that as a teenager and this was fun to do with my friends here. Thanks to all - Gaining Strength
-
Dear GS -
You are a very nice person- you were not too harsh!!! I am proud of you. Please write that movie or a pamphlet or something to expose this type of madness (not everyone is as wise as you are). Besides, it could be hilarious!
Hugs,
Changing
-
Dear GS,
Please re-read your reply to this dormant snake and highlite the portions where you were harsh.... ?
I see you thanking him repeatedly, assuring him that you like him, reaffirming that you appreciate him... but I'm missing the harsh part.
Love,
Hope
-
Okay - here's what I wrote back. I'll entertain any Monday morning quaterback comments. This has actually turned from utter frustration to a form of entertainment thanks to this group of fun loving characters. Now Authentic I suspect you are going to be saying I told you so when I get his response but I just couldn't help it - I had to say something.
Paul,
... I have to take issue with some points on your e-mail. I'll address one
here. You wrote, "Barriers and boundries are for protection from harm.
Frequently however barriers and boundries serve to protect ourselves from what
is good as well as what is bad. It is then, that we should carefully question
ouselves as to what we are protecting ourselves from. If we are protecting
ourselves from physical harm or finaincial ruin we are justified, however if we
are trying to protect
ourselves from emotional harm, then we are misplaced in our efforts. Emotional
harm is only in the mind and is a result of our own delusions about what is
right."
Here is my problem. I don't have the interest nor the inclination to get
involved. The "couples" exercises are not something that interest me. My
boundary is set but according to your logic the only legitimate boundary is as
protection from physical or financial harm because emotional harm is a delusion.
Therefore - the only reasonable response is - yeah let's go for it. Well my
answer is, "No. That's not for me." I find your reasoning about boundaries,
manipulative. I suspect you aren't aware of it but I ran it by a couple of
friends who saw your words manipulative as well.
I like you, I've enjoyed our conversations but I'm not interested in getting
involved. I have too much on my plate. I am reserving all of my time and
energy for my son and my work. Part of the interior work I have done in recent
years has been specifically about boundaries. This is a particularly
significant issue for me and I simply disagree with you unequivocally about
"emotional harm." Your e-mail is a red flag for me and I must politely bur
firmly decline your offer.
I have enjoyed our conversations about our mutual interests and I admire much
about you, but I have no interests in anything tantric nor in any kind of
couples' exercises. We've actually crossed a point of interest and comfort for
me. It happened some time ago but I couldn't quite put my finger on it until
now. I'm glad I can articulate it and be clear.
That's what I said. I'm sorry but not really surprised that the concept of this friendship is illusory. I really appreciate your help in getting it clear about what bothered me. It is really no loss and just a blip on the scale of disappointment. It's just too bad. A friendship could have been nice. But that poor old snake is going to have to remain dormant for a while I guess.
The good news for me is that my antennae are working. That is very good news. It gives me a little confidence to consider venturing out into this world. Thanks - GS
Bones - HE didn't say scientology. Hops thought I might say it to HIM!! And just for the reaction you described. Too bad poor old Katie Holmes didn't see that red flag! LOL
Gaining Strength, That was a very good letter in so many ways. Firstly, it was beautifully written; I agree that you have a gift for writing. In terms of the content, I felt that it cut through a lot of his `meandering' and went straight to the point, which is the issue of you wanting a different level of closeness to what he wants. You wrote it in an intelligent and graceful manner, and I can't see anything that was harsh. You are very good at your `I feel' statements. You called him out on some manipulative behaviour, which you conceded may not be conscious (not that it matters!) and you expressed that in a manner that was `direct' but not mean.
Mostly, you spent a lot of time explaining your original position, and it was kind of you to do that, because he probably should have listened to you in the first place and backed off a little out of sensitivity, instead of `educating' you as to why your boundaries are faulty.
Honestly, I think you've done a lot of explaining regarding what you want, and hes done a lot of explaining regarding what he wants, and there is a difference of opinion between you. Honestly tantric sex shouldn't be a deal breaker in a legitimate friendship, but it could be depending on how he handles differences of opinion and how much he wants things his way.
I don't think its really worth arguing this any more. Why should you have to? But if he tries to argue about this again, I'd suggest that you just say `I don't want to argue about this as you know my position'. If he's any sort of friend he'll back off.
I really wish you luck with this. I now its nice to have smart, interesting, male friends who you can talk to. I guess you're bout to find out if he is manipulator or a firend, and that is scarey. But I feel that you've gone about it in te right way.
X Bella
-
Okay - here's what seemed harsh to me - now I'm weighing it harsh or direct.
I find your reasoning about boundaries, manipulative.
I'm not interested in getting involved.
Your e-mail is a red flag for me
I think I was worried that the tone was harsh but now that I see it through your eyes Certain Hope and Bella I see it more as direct. I felt that I had not been direct in the past. I had not responded to other introductions to similar topics in a passive sort of way.
at the beginning of his e-mail he wrote, "When you were looking at the breath book, you asked me what hugging had to
do with breathing." I did indeed but I said it with a lightly caustic tone and closed the book and handed it back to him. My (indirect) meaning was, "You said 'breathing' but you meant 'hugging'. I'm not interested." I clearly was not direct enough. Perhaps direct is not as easy for me as I thought.
I got a reply and here are three points from his message:
My words are offered only for contemplation and I am aware that I am not perfect. However the meaning conveyed was apparently not what I had intended.
Here is a quote: " Shared exercise is only a small part of the totality of the practices."
Ruiz mentions that we are "hurt emotionally" by the actions of others because we choose to be.
I only wish to have partners interested in exploring the mind and body, through
yoga, martial arts and other physical and mental training.
And my reply:
I think this is an area of confusion as I would say I am interested in the above
as well. Nonetheless that does not mean that everything that fits these
catagories is a go for me. My problem is that the breathing exercises you
suggested crossed a line for me. I am a little disappointed that that line
seems vague to you.
In particular I have loved the Ruiz material and the ensuing discussions. I
have an interest in yoga and martial arts but not in any practice that I
wouldn't find in any public center around town.
*************
Thanks for walking through this with me. I feel much more comfortable about my reaction and responses. It has been a great help to have supportive feedback.
-
Dear GS,
Thank you! I so understand the struggle to be direct and yet gentle, to convey facts clearly without stirring the emotional pot and to avoid giving offense where at all possible.
The fact is, when another person wants something that you're not prepared to give her/him, that's a tough row to hoe.
Often, I stilll think.. it'd be so much easier if folks would just take a hint... like your somewhat caustic tone and closing of the book when he first presented it to you. But now I see that's a throwback to my former days of expecting others to read my mind/heart when I didn't even really know why something about them disturbed me, let alone have a clue of how to convey that!
Reviewing these things here with you, by your willingness to share all this, is helping alot.
About this latest from him: "My words are offered only for contemplation and I am aware that I am not perfect. However the meaning conveyed was apparently not what I had intended."
Instant reaction from me = warning bells, flashing lights, and sirens.
His statement could be a direct quote from npd-ex in response to my saying something like what you've told this guy - simple as "I am not interested."
Implications? "You are unrealistically demanding that he be perfect, when we all know how troubled YOU are." Phooey.
More implications: "You were supposed to be bowled over by my warning that only a troubled person would have a problem with my suggestion. Apparently my intended manipulations of your psyche failed. Shucks."
And more: "I can't hurt you emotionally unless you let me, so if you get hurt, that's your problem."
And finally: "Clearly you do not meet my requirements in a partner, as you have not realized my highly enlightened state of being, you poor, poor thang. Anyone who can't see the benefits of association with me in this is certainly substandard. You NEED ME!!!!!"
Oh, pardon me, but BARFO!
Love,
Hope
-
I have to admit I am laughing at all these responses-do it with a man-go to the scientology Church! It is so funny. This guy seems a bit nerdy with his over the top rationales like you becoming a serial killer if you do not huh him!
-
Thanks lighter. The responses moved me from frustrated to LOL. I love that new perspective.
Lighter saying of the day......
'Your altitude is determined by your attitute.'
I think it's at least partially true: )
Laughing is almost always better than feeling frutrated and ticked off: /
-
"You are unrealistically demanding that he be perfect, "
And more: "I can't hurt you emotionally unless you let me, so if you get hurt, that's your problem."
Yeah, I get these same responses. It is easy to dissect someone else's writing and it has been fun here too. But it also has been helpful. I truly believe that Paul is a kind and caring person. I am certain that he did not intend this manipulation. He does indeed want to share his interests but I suspect that he is unaware of how he was being manipulative and coercive. Wouldn't it have been nice if he could have said, "Oops, didn't mean to be manipulative. Let me try that again. I get that your not interested in the breathing exercises would you like to have a cup of coffee and talk about the Ruiz book?" That would have been a welcome response.
-
ooooh! What an interesting interchange, GS!
I see a guy who desperately wants intimacy but is afraid to ask for it straightforwardly, and instead using high-sounding philosophies and ideas to come around the back! He probably is manipulative the way we all are (as in, how can I get what I want in this situation and at the same time save face if I get rejected).
You handled it well, GS. Very calmly. It's what I like about email--you don't have to send your first draft! (thank goodness--my first drafts are always horrible).
Love
CB
-
Great job, GS.
For me iin 3D friendships when there's conflict or misunderstanding, if one email exchange doesn't resolve it, I have to stop emailing and see or talk to the person.
I have been submerged in exhausting deconstructions/postmortems like this off and on over the years and I have to say, few of those relationships are still vital.
CB:
You mean running down the street screaming at the sky wait! wait! come baaaaaaaack! doesn't work for email?
Dang.
Hops
-
CB,
or GS (if you're not tired of talking about this... if so, I'd sure understand)
or Hops?
Could you please try to explain to me how we can conclude from all this that the man is just performing ordinary human manipulations in order to save face?
I'm confused... which is nothing new, but I'd really like to try to understand this one.
Reading the first letter, I thought... okay, this is odd, but so what? No harm in his trying... and it didn't seem so concerning, except for that bit about pre-empting any objections which may come about.
It's his latest response which really alerted my reactive warnings, because he didn't just say, "Oh, I can see how you might have felt that way!" or "Oh, my goodness, no! I would never want to offend you... I'm so sorry!" I mean, I can appreciate his not wanting to admit straight out if what he really wanted was more physical intimacy, but... I don't even sense any regret in his response.
Am I missing something?
Thanks.
Love,
Hope
-
Yeah CH, I do see him as a gentle soul and I know he is a wounded person as am I and as are many of us here. I truly believe that he is acting out of that wound rather than out of his enlightenment (which I think he believes is his basis.) But when I look again at his response I see this: My words are offered only for contemplation and I am aware that I am not perfect.
Actually his words were not offered for contemplation, they were offered for action: the exercises. And as you pointed out earlier the "I am not perfect" response is a very defensive one.
You are asking a question that I can't quite get a handle on. I am struck that he did not address my primary point - that boundaries used to avoid emotional pain are legitimate and instead actually (you helped me see this) defends his actions. So is taking this apart an exercise in looking for a villain? Or is it figuring out what is a realistic boundary and when you feel your boundaries crossed can you resolve that issue with a dialogue. What is reasonable in this process? Are we, because of our wounds, too sensitive and expecting too much of someone else? (Hasn't that thought gotten me into trouble in the past!!!!)
I'm glad you didn't let this go. I think this boundary issue is very important as we move forward. I don't have any answers but I am thankful that we are discussing it here. Thanks - GS
-
Dear GS,
Npd-ex appeared to be a very gentle, sensitive soul... as long as I didn't say "no"... and I wonder,
is this the first time you've ever said "no" to Paul?
And I don't believe that there are near as many villains to be unwrapped as we may fear, when in the first stages of realization re: abuse. I really don't.
I think that most people are quite harmless, in and of themselves, provided we maintain realistic expectations within ourselves and learn to fine tune our own boundaries.
But still, this line concerns me:
"My words are offered only for contemplation and I am aware that I am not perfect."
That could mean: "I only wanted you to know that I am most interested in pursuing these breathing exercises with you, although I know that I fall short as an ideal man for you."
But I think that's a stretch, because truly... the fact is, this sentence makes little sense to me. I mean, this may seem silly, but I've noticed, even from a grammatical standpoint, disordered minds don't produce sensible phrases. Here we have the positioning of the conjunction "and" between two seemingly unrelated thoughts... again, unless I'm missing something. Sounds like "word salad" to me.
His lack of addressing your primary concern is the most obvious element of all, though.
Is he most concerned with defending his reason and right to have made this inappropriate advance?
Wouldn't a genuinely gentle soul be more concerned with how this exchange has left you feeling?
I don't have the full picture of what's reasonable in this process, GS. Sure wish I did. I do think, however, that it's wise to re-consider the terms under which we'd noted a person's character as new evidence comes to light. NPD-ex came across as the endearing, wounded, dog-loving, helpful guy next door who loved to speak to me in Spanish and read me poetry... ahh, so gentle. Not.
It's not that I think Paul is a villain, GS... just that I'm not sure whether the adjective gentle fits him, based on what you've shared of his writing. I guess only time will tell?
Love,
Hope
-
GS,
i haven't read the other replies on this thread, but this is what immediately stood out to me as a HUGE red flag:
"however if we are trying to protect
ourselves from emotional harm, then we are misplaced in our efforts. Emotional
harm is only in the mind and is a result of our own delusions about what is
right. "
i think it's good you've kept this guy at arm's length. anyone who says something like that sounds to me like they're emotional abusers. he'd use this line with you once he hurt you...."oh, it's a delusion, it's all in your mind. it's not real". blah blah blah.
pseudoscience! and rubbish!
-
Hi,
Saying this makes me feel like a spoilsport, but I believe this man's gig is to get his subjects caught up in chasing illusions. Dig all you want, but not much lies beyond what he has already revealed. Still feeling like a spoilsport, I think he is a shallow pond!
tt
-
Over the past year we have gotten together 6 or so times, either he has come by (3 or 4 times) or we have met at a park & pizza joint or a science museum. The rest of communication has been via phone or e-mail - and not frequently. But even way back last September when he came by he brought a bunch of books to look at and the last one was a different yoga-sex book.
That's my problem - we've gotten together, had conversations but not even been on what I would call a "date" and on more than one occassion he has handed me what would be considered by most accounts "suggestive" coupling images. I've finally lived long enough to sort out my priorities - emotional intimacy must precede physical intimacy. Both of these yoga books have made me uncomfortable. And while I couldn't figure out whether to address the issue or not - then comes the e-mail with yet another hindu image with talks about these "breathing" exercises which were under a section in the book entitled "couples".
In the end the discomfort that these books and images cause me is what matters. I gave it a chance to see if perhaps he might get beyond this stuff but I realize he was probably waiting to see if I would get beyond my resistance. Nice guy, not interested.
PS - We know a number of people in common and this past spring one mutual friend said he heard I was "dating" someone. "Absolutely NOT," I replied. and at Valentine's Day he brought a few trinkets by and said that he had some things for me even though he knew we were not an item. It was sweet. I took him for his word - we are not an item. Oh well - live and learn. Nothing ventured nothing gained. But this time I really did learn something and absolutely nothing was lost.
Wish he had acknowledged the boundary problem in his logic. C'est la vie.
-
Dear GS,
It all makes good sense to me. Just one note, please, before you wrap this up in your mind...
In your last post, you've just repeated a phrase which you used in your first reply to Paul, referring to your very legitimate concerns and boundaries as...
"my problem".
I don't think you have a problem, GS. Not a bit.
Love,
Hope
-
Believe it or not there is more:
Here are three paragraphs from a 6 paragraph reply. I don't think I will reply but I am interested in examining his thoughts one more time. It really helps me sort things out.
#1Thank you for being tolerant of my poor communication skills and giving me a
chance to explain. In the first letter I was attempting to let you know what I
was working on, and find out what areas you would be interested in so we could
work on those. I will still teach martial arts at 5-6 two days per week in the park. Sometimes
Elaine comes as well as Bill. We do cover some of the yoga breathing as it is
helpful to practice. I would always like to cover new methods of yoga breathing
as they seem to have countless methods. Martial arts is mostly about breathing
and breath control, there is not a single movement that is done without doing
the correct breathing associated with that movement.
[#2] My intention was to only do a series of exercise mentioned in a book from the
golden temple who teaches a course that is similar in nature to the book. Both
Kundalina yoga and white tantra are offered at the golden temple and I would
like to take lessons there because they have a course to become a certified
instructor. If I can find the time and the 2500.00 this course should cover the
areas I wish to explore. I will of course only impart the knowledge to those who
wish it, so as not to offend anyone.
#3 The most important thing is the intention of people. It is difficult to tell
the intent of others and I understand that my intentions were not clear. So let
me say for the record: Any suggestions I make are suggestions only for your
contemplation. If they are not to your liking I will go out of my way not to
mention them again. As I now know your personal "line" I will not be crossing
that one again.
Authentic - of course you were right. He has an answer for every thing.
CH - there really is no point in replying. If this statement were true he would have simply dropped the whole discussion and moved on. Any suggestions I make are suggestions only for your
contemplation. If they are not to your liking I will go out of my way not to
mention them again. Or he would have made a different suggestion. Why does he say "will go out of my way"
In #1 he has used "breathing" exercises in a way that I had originally interpreted the phrase but that is not at all what was in the book with the frontal hugging "couples" exercises. If I were truly better I would have let this go a long time ago but I am only on my way. This makes me mad because it is somehow related to something I have experienced in the past. His meaning changes with the conversation. As someone said eariler - I guarantee Paul won't be doing those "hugging" breathing exercises with Bill in the park.
I have no idea what all #2 is about unless it is a response to my comment that I am only interested in breathing exercises done in any public center. I think he is trying to suggest that because that book came from a store where they teach kundalina and tantra that everything in that book therefore passes my "stink" test. Now that is twisted logic and that makes me mad.
I was not interested in a romantic involvement but now I see that "friendship" is not really possible either. There is some lack of forthrightness and I am not willing nor able to plug into that now.
I am disappointed and irritated. I ask myself why and I know the answer. If he had gotten my first reply and come back with somethig like - "I hear you. There are tons of other such exercises. Come to the park where we are doing martial arts and participate with the group." Now that would have been a different kind of answer. Instead I get - "well I didn't say I wanted to do intimate couples breathing I simply said you should contemplate it and that boundaries aren't for emotional things because Ruiz says you decide who hurts you and ............blah, blah, blah."
Now that makes me mad. I'm tired of bumping into the same old stuff. Surely there is more to bump into out there in the world.
-
Dear GS,
REALLY Big sigh... that's what I get from it...
big spiel, all about him and his interests as a wanna-be-guru.
Backpeddling in #1 (maybe he finally woke up and realized how defensive he sounded last time)
"You'll regret not being a part of all that I'm gonna be" in #2 = foo foo :P reminiscent of "you don't know what you're missing."
And #3 - "Well, you can't prove my previous intentions, so nana na boo boo to you! You want anything further to do with me, you know where you can find me. Let me know if you change your mind."
I don't think he needs a letter assignment or even that he's necessarily disordered... just stuck on himself.
What did tt say? Shallow pond. Now if there continues to be more and more... then we might look further into assigning him a letter :shock:
((((((((GS)))))))) I'm sorry about this disappointment. I've met alot of these characters in Christian circles who came across initially as tender-hearted, spiritual folks but really only used their religion to prop up their self-appointed "master" status. Each new lesson learned puts a certain glimmer into your eye that this sort recognizes... as they veer off out of awareness that their stuff won't work with you, the genuine articles will have room to approach.
Much love to you,
Hope
-
Certain Hope - thanks for sticking with me on this. It has been such a helpful exchange. I have grown enough and healed enough to learn some lessons I didn't learn earlier in life. This thread has been like going back to teenage years and learning how to navigate social waters. I feel like I am doing it much better. I know why I get hung up on certain things - old habits from growing up N.
In this case Paul said some things and meant another and when I pointed my flashlight on it the meaning and intent shifted. I don't think he is malicioius but wounded. We all are wounded but how that wound manifests in our day to day life is the question. And for what ever reason Paul is not as aware of the consequences of his wounds as he thinks. He really is a kind person but not as straightforward nor as self-aware as I would like. Those two issues are significant for me because of my history with Ns. He is not an N but the Ns in my life were anything but straightforward and wholly lacking in self-awareness and the result of those issues has been significant pain and suffering for me. Now I can identify those issues with the help of you and others here. That is very, very good news and a great comfort and encouragement to me. Thanks ever so much for sticking with me to sort this out.
your friend - Gaining Strength
-
CB:
You mean running down the street screaming at the sky wait! wait! come baaaaaaaack! doesn't work for email?
Dang.
Hops
Oh....
::sigh::
Man...
that is just funny, lol.
-
Hi, GS-
Since this topic is still going strong, would you be willing to give a synopsis of the story of your relationship with your friend?
If you're not wanting to do that, it's ok, I'm just interested in the story in its entirety, from the beginning.
I also wanted to say that there was a lot that Bean had to say that made sense to me.
cats paw
-
AHHHHH Blech.... going to teh shoilin temple and paying 2500.00 for information he doesn't wish to impart on anyone who doesn't want to receive it, lol.
Hee!
Like you'll rethink your position!?!??
Now....
Or.....
even better....
feel guilt about qeustioning his motives and generous offer :shock:
Blech!
Ptuey!
::Blowing big phat raspberry:: : -{***
-
Dear GS,
You are so welcome... I'm glad, too!
Trying to understand matters like this with an aware, balanced view is a new thing for me, too.
Till now, I've always just flown by the seat of my pants, so to speak, so this is just another one of those Late-Bloomer lessons that it seems to be time to face square-on...
to be more purpose-full - not just falling into relationships, but choosing friends with more deliberate awareness of the dynamics and individual needs. Wow, that still blows me away... that it's okay for each of us to have needs!!
All together, your summary of this situation with Paul rings true in both my heart and mind, GS. He's not a bad guy, just not a wise choice for friendship, is what I'm hearing. It just fits, plain and simple.
Still facing some similar boundary confusions with an old friend who continues to write me, looking to re-establish contact... and I'm not sure yet whether I'm able to continue relating to her without falling back into old patterns, so... this really helps.
It's a tough decision to make when you're a recovering fixer/helper and know that the other person is hurting.
Next thing, I'm thinking of doing some more research, Biblically based, on how to make wise choices re: friendships and take it from there. Of course, a list of desireable traits would be helpful, too... straightforward and self-aware are good ones you've mentioned. This will take some time and more consistent work, but it's all good, so.. thank you!
Your friend,
Hope
-
Cat's Paw
would you be willing to give a synopsis of the story of your relationship with your friend?
It's not really a relationship, more of an acquaintence actually. We have some friends in common and that's how we met. He was married at the time but his wife left him last summer. I spelled out much of our "relationship" on page 3, reply 43, next to the last one on that page. There is really not much to it.
I actually posted about him back in March and quoted an e-mail then. I got alot of reactions similar to this time. Here is part of what he wrote then:
Do not be afraid of love, it is not the kind of romantic jealously that most
people call love. It is the deep abiding love from the heart that does not
require anything in return.
I do not seek rewards on this earth, things that we think that we own are only
ours for this lifetime. ... Open your heart to me and I will fill you with
love. This will not cost you anything, and will not prevent you from following
any path you choose. I will not demand that you see me exclusively or love only
me. If you meet someone that cares for you and loves you I will only be happy
for you.
I got this e-mail in March and we have e-mailed several times since and then I ran into him a couple of weeks ago. The last time I remember seeing him before July was in February. Not exactly a regular encounter.
Certain Hope -
Still facing some similar boundary confusions with an old friend who continues to write me, looking to re-establish contact... and I'm not sure yet whether I'm able to continue relating to her without falling back into old patterns, so... this really helps.
I really understand how this is a concern. It is the old patterns that are so important to change, especially our own patterns - for me, that means my patterns of reaction to things. That is why it is so helpful to learn how to do things differently.
-
Hi GS,
Certain Hope - thanks for sticking with me on this. It has been such a helpful exchange. I have grown enough and healed enough to learn some lessons I didn't learn earlier in life. This thread has been like going back to teenage years and learning how to navigate social waters. I feel like I am doing it much better. I know why I get hung up on certain things - old habits from growing up N.
In this case Paul said some things and meant another and when I pointed my flashlight on it the meaning and intent shifted. I don't think he is malicioius but wounded. We all are wounded but how that wound manifests in our day to day life is the question. And for what ever reason Paul is not as aware of the consequences of his wounds as he thinks. He really is a kind person but not as straightforward nor as self-aware as I would like. Those two issues are significant for me because of my history with Ns. He is not an N but the Ns in my life were anything but straightforward and wholly lacking in self-awareness and the result of those issues has been significant pain and suffering for me. Now I can identify those issues with the help of you and others here. That is very, very good news and a great comfort and encouragement to me. Thanks ever so much for sticking with me to sort this out.
your friend - Gaining Strength
I am so glad that CH and others are helping you lay stepping stones to understanding. I wish I were more help, but on the man/woman stuff, my advice you DON'T want! I'll be reading along with interest. It's been fun these last few months sharing your aha monents, GS.
tt
-
on the man/woman stuff, my advice you DON'T want!
LOL tt. That bad huh?
It's been fun these last few months sharing your aha monents, GS.
Thanks tt. I am so very, very thankful. Today I made yet another stride. I faced a very old issue that I have tried and tried to deal with but each and every time I found myself overwhelmed with shame and anxiety and was paralyzed to take action. But today I got to work and made some progress. That was good but the amzaing thing was that none of the old shame etc was triggered. That is a progress that I long feared I would never see. I am certain that I got there by BELIEVING that I would. Changing my thoughts has really begun to change my life. I am just simply amazed and unbelievably thankful. It feels nothing short of miraculous.
-
GS,
Thanks for posting that - it sure brought clarity to the rest of what you've said.
I just figured out- TODAY- that I needed to be logged in to read all previous posts by members. So when you refer to page 43, I assume it's page 43 of your posts? I'm going to go look.
cats paw
-
No, no Cat's Paw. That's page 3 of this thread and the reply number 43. It's the one next to the bottom.
-
GS-
Thanks. I did read that, yet the last excerpt you posted from what he said makes the picture more complete.
When you posted about this before, was this one of the things that sparked a discussion about monogamy? I seem to vaguely remember a board discussion when I was just a lurker.
What I think is pretty cool, though, is that you're being more open to life and the resultant things to deal with- which you seem to be doing just fine with.
cats paw
-
Dear GS,
Paul's initial emails sound "good" and "pure" on the surface,but don't "feel" right to me. They feel like he is trying to rope you in .
It does not sound "real" to me. Just an impression, GS Love Ami
-
Hi GS, Sorry I haven't posted on this thread lately, but I have been reading it. You have seemed to be on top of things and received really insightful advice, I feel.
Paul seems to be very interested getting the upper hand in his friendship with you, don't you think? He seems to intuitively sense that the key to getting the upper hand with you is to get you to forfeit your boundaries, if not convince you that you are downright faulty for having any. I think what hes doing, unconsciously or otherwise, is trying to get to a place with you where you are vulnerable and defer to his way of thinking. Maybe he thinks physical intimacy or sex will give him the leverage he needs. But anyway, I think its really about power. Why do you think he wants power in your relationship? Could it be his natural impulse, or do you think he is challenged by your way of thinking and lack of deference and has become insecure? Or some other reason? Its food for thought.
Gaining Strength, I feel that you may be able to get what you want from your friendship with Paul, so long as you are aware of the power struggle, and never let him get the upper hand. You might even teach him something, which could be the basis of his fascination with you. I don't think you have to be afraid of Paul; just be aware that he's trying (unsuccessfully) to win a power struggle. If it that is too boring and tiring for you to put up with, I can totally understand.
X Bella
-
I do not seek rewards on this earth, things that we think that we own are only
ours for this lifetime. ... Open your heart to me and I will fill you with
love. This will not cost you anything, and will not prevent you from following
any path you choose. I will not demand that you see me exclusively or love only
me. If you meet someone that cares for you and loves you I will only be happy
for you. [/i]
I got this e-mail in March .....
Dear GS,
I was away from the board in March and never saw this one... oy vey. ((((((((GS))))))))) I'm with you on changing reactions to these things!
He may be reluctant to make "demands", but he sure has no trouble ignoring your attempts at subtle boundary enforcement.
I wouldn't want to have to spell everything out to somebody time after time... AND... and and... sometimes I think these "easy going" ones with no demands just want to ensure that nobody makes any demands on them! And that's another 2 cents worth from me :)
Love,
Hope
-
Hi GS,
When he gave me the iggghhs it was when Paul said:
"I will only impart the knowledge to..." etc.
I'm just not comfortable with people who say things like:
I will impart the knowledge.
The pretentiousness of it bowls me over.
Hops
-
LOL. I agree Hops. Those condescending remarks rub me up the wrong way too.
-
GS - I hear a blurring of his own boundaries covered with some "spiritual" prose which he seems to think is lyrical. IMO he's looking for someone to merge with so he doesn't have to deal with his own boundary issues. Don't you think you're irritated 'cuz this is too similar to your mom? Yet it's not the same - he's not your mom and his boundary violations are not as blatant - but it's still violation of you.
towrite
-
Don't you think you're irritated 'cuz this is too similar to your mom?
Oh yeah - absolutely.
When you posted about this before, was this one of the things that sparked a discussion about monogamy?
I am not sure Cat's Paw.
When he gave me the iggghhs it was when Paul said:
"I will only impart the knowledge to..." etc.
You know that really gets to the bottom of what I think has worn thin in this budding friendship. When we talk he will "teach" me something and I will comment and he will "correct" me. Hey! I have an opinion too.
I think what hes doing, unconsciously or otherwise, is trying to get to a place with you where you are vulnerable and defer to his way of thinking.
Yes Bella. This is exactly what I now think. He wants to "teach" me. But as with Ns it is not a relationship if it is not a give and take. And quite frankly I am not looking for a teacher. Now I see that over the months he has not been interested in receiving my thoughts or perspectives. And that is not a relationship. I think he really wants an audience. Perhaps thats why the freindship never really bloomed.
Boy does it help to work things out here. I have much more insight than before. It is the give and take that I long for. It definitely was not available here. That's what the problem is with this line Open your heart to me and I will fill you with
love. That is not a relationship. That is a kind of dominance. At best it is a parent-child. Equals don't "fill [one another] up" that give and receive. I fill my son with love because I brought him into this world and gave him life and expect nothing back from him at his stage. But that doesn't work with equals. Thanks all.
-
It is the give and take that I long for. It definitely was not available here. That's what the problem is with this line Open your heart to me and I will fill you with love.
That is not a relationship. That is a kind of dominance. At best it is a parent-child. Equals don't "fill [one another] up" that give and receive. I fill my son with love because I brought him into this world and gave him life and expect nothing back from him at his stage. But that doesn't work with equals. Thanks all.
Wow, GS... that's it! That is it !! Exactly.
Look at what you've accomplished here, in defining the most basic foundation of all functional relationships.
I could go on and on identifying what I didn't want, didn't like, didn't feel was right, but I couldn't seem to lay that groundwork.
Thank you!
This is what I want, as well. The give and receive in sharing, not the "you must recognize that you're not complete until/unless you deal with me".
Do you know how many of my unsatisfying relationships have been so out of balance? All of them... all out of sync because I'm supposed to acknowledge and accept and receive but the other has no interest in receiving from me... no sense of my being valuable as an independent entity.
And you know... the same goes for any part/aspect of myself which tries to tell me that I "must" allow it to dominate or else I'm lacking.
Hogwash.
All those little personality segments need to harmonize too, receiving from each other in that give and take flow, or else somebody's going down.
ooo... thank you ((((((((Gaining Strength))))))) :)
With love,
Hope
-
Thanks Certain Hope,
This has been a very valuable process for me. I am making certain strides and am thankful. It helps me deal with some of the old entrenched anxieties.
-
Hi bean and all,
Bean, I agree this is a great thread. I look back on it and how about midway, I, in so many words, and in my glib fashion, dusted my hands off and dismissed this guy. Then I read along as what he said was dissected by the others and was pretty amazed at how they shed light on and gave expression to important facets of the things he said. I finally got it that this was about GS's need to have a good give and take shake down about it all. I'm learning so much from that girl! :)
tt
-
Boyfriend and I had couple's therapy again yesterday.. Therapist proceeded to explain that men "correct, and give advice" while women "explain feelings, hoping to get empathy."
So there is a disconnect here, and it can appear quite hopeless. But, don't fret, cause that's just the way men and women are.
[all can be proud I did not Hmppfff and say Baloney!]
I am still trying to wrap (warp?) my mind around that one.
bean
Dear Bean,
Yup... men are problem solvers. They don't want to hear all the details, just the bottom line, and that can seem quite dismissive... but there's no ill intent.
Just the way they're wired.
However, speaking from personal experience here... if both man and woman are aware of each other's inclinations (hard-wiring) and needs (men have emotional needs, too, o yes they do)
.... and if neither man nor woman will latch onto resentment toward the other for being different, but rather accept the inherent tendancies of each other as biological fact (because it is)
.... then there can be a genuine give and take and growth of intimacy.
I don't expect to get the quantity of emotional rapport/relations with my husband as I can get through talking with another woman, but the quality can be there, with respectful understanding and appreciation of the differences between us.
When I really need to talk, I'll preface my statement with: "I'm not looking for you to fix this, okay?" and he gets the picture.
Funny thing is, I tend to try to "fix' when he talks, too, so I have to take heed of the same stuff.
Hope
-
I do not seek rewards on this earth, things that we think that we own are only
ours for this lifetime. ... Open your heart to me and I will fill you with
love. This will not cost you anything, and will not prevent you from following
any path you choose. I will not demand that you see me exclusively or love only
me. If you meet someone that cares for you and loves you I will only be happy
for you. [/i]
I got this e-mail in March .....
Dear GS,
I was away from the board in March and never saw this one... oy vey!
Hope
I believe he wants her to open more than her heart.... so he can fill her with more than his love. Oy Vey, is right: /
Blech.....
yes, lol.....
again: )
-
Hi Besee,
I understand what you've said in your post, just wanted to put in another bit on this...
I don't feel dumb, stupid, or like a small child when talking with my husband... and I don't feel that he views me as inferior just because I don't function in the same way as he does.
By the same token, I feel a responsibility to not look down upon his style of handling things... and to not take offense at the fact that his framework of viewing issues and problems varies from my own.
Understanding our different make-ups actually removes the element of competition for superiority, because it's no longer a matter of right ways vs. wrong ways, or greater/lesser... just different.
It's important to me that I haven't abdicated my responsibility to be his mate - in the context of giving counsel and accountability issues - and I don't want him to stop trying to advise me - because I do need that at times -... and that's exactly what I see would happen if I insisted that my way of communication was the right way and continually demanded that he change to suit my style. I think then that communication would cease.
What I have recognized (I think) is the wisdom of not setting out my own feelings as the foundation on which I expect him to build. I work to express them, but remain open to the possibility that they're not going to solve anything. So it's about sharing, not expecting him to make me feel better. Of course I end up feeling better (usually) simply because I was able to express those feelings without having him leap in after two sentences with a solution!
So as I respect his factual approach (by not declaring it wrong) and he respects my feelings and emotional responses (respects them by allowing me to put them out there and not telling me they're wrong), we're able to build a common ground/foundation that's mutual... because we are equal, just different. Sometimes I enjoy his mentoring, too... just not where emotions are involved.. and he does seem to understand that.
Sheesh, I really do need to work at being more concise... lol. See... good thing he's a patient man!
Hope
-
Hi again, Besee,
You're welcome... but I don't think I've expressed what I meant very well.
Seems like the more I try to feel what's going on within me, the harder it gets to write, as though it takes me to a different level... maybe back to grade school. I hope you won't mind if I try again here.
Just recently I realized that I had some skewed notions of what empathy really is. I always thought it meant to actually feel someone else's emotions... and now I know that's not right.
So when I read what you've said about "a deep understanding of feelings", I think that I need to qualify that.
My husband does understand that there are times when he's not being asked to fix, but only to hear and help me to talk through my feelings. Actually, he's a big part of the reason why I'm beginning to understand this better now, but anyway...
that doesn't mean that he always understands my feelings... just that he's willing to hear and acknowledge them and usually, that's all it takes, because I'm not holding him responsible for how I feel... only needing him to be a sounding board.
And I fear that I'm still not conveying what I mean... argh.
I guess it's about the difference between understanding and acknowledgement. I'm the first to admit that I don't understand some of my own feelings... which is a big part of the reason why I've often failed to acknowledge them. Does that help?
In other words, he doesn't "approve" or "disapprove" them, just recognizes that they're affecting me and that alone helps to release them.
About Rosenburg's book... I have trouble seeing "consoling" and "sympathizing" as life alienating communications... I don't get it.
Sometimes that's all anyone can do, isn't it? The very best anyone can do, I'd think. At least I'd have been glad for it so many times.
This is all such foreign ground for me, Besee.. so much of this is stuff I should have learned years ago and didn't... but I want to now.
And I know exactly what you mean about all that judging... my goodness, I'm just thankful to have people willing to listen and maybe even take the time to ask a question or two, because most of the time, that's what it takes for me to dig out what's lies beneath... which is why this board is so very wonderful.
You wrote: "it is about respecting others and differences in others and not making people "bad" for being different."
Exactly. As I unlearn all the lessons taught me by my mother, that is what is left. Respecting differences, not demanding anyone be x,y, or z for me... because I said so.
Best to you, too, Besee... thank you so much for writing back.
Hope
-
Perhaps the way a guy acts just comes down to a combination of age, personality and influences? I think there is a place for the `men are from mars' kind of guys; to me it is a matter of personal taste whether this is the kind of guy/ relationship you are after or not. I do not think this is the only type of guy though.
Maybe because of my work and the social circles I've travelled in, I have known many men who are comfortable talking about their feelings, expressing their emotions, nurturing, and being stay at home Dads. They are usually gentler, more sensitive men; followers more than leaders, and rarely very materialistic. In my experience there are more men like this `coming out' , and I suspect its because career women more readily accept them and value their emotional support, even if they are not great cash cows.
I think my fiance is more like this. I didn't really go for men like him in my twenties (although they were around), because I think i was looking for a man who would look after me financially, and who was more of a `leader'. And I was ` wired' to be fascinated with NPD guys, so no wonder gentle nurturing men were not appealing to me.
My conclusion about men is that it is a mistake to expect everything from a guy in one package.
-
Bella,
" I have known many men who are comfortable talking about their feelings, expressing their emotions, nurturing, and being stay at home Dads. They are usually gentler, more sensitive men; followers more than leaders, and rarely very materialistic. In my experience there are more men like this `coming out' , and I suspect its because career women more readily accept them and value their emotional support, even if they are not great cash cows."
This sounds like my husband, except for the last bit...he's very good at the 'providing' part, (but then, so am I, so we do that bit equally :D )
I think part of the myth of 'New Man' is that they can be ONE or the OTHER, but never a mixture of emotional AND effective in the work environment, so some men might shy away from being labelled as 'New' because they think they'd therefore be seen as effeminate in some way. I'd agree, though, that this type of male (in my husband's case, anyway), is not at all materialistic. His idea of things like buying clothes is like' Why do I need another jumper? I've already got one.'
HUH? ONE???!!! :shock: :shock: :shock:
I'm glad your fiance is more New than Old, it's a good way to be, IMO.
Janet
-
Hope, you wrote,
"About Rosenburg's book... I have trouble seeing "consoling" and "sympathizing" as life alienating communications... I don't get it.
Sometimes that's all anyone can do, isn't it? The very best anyone can do, I'd think. At least I'd have been glad for it so many times."
I think what they mean by alienating is that once you sympathize (I've always heard it's 'pity') or console someone, it puts you "one up" on them. As if you are above them, all objective, and you somehow are in a place to "make" them feel better. I am here - you are there - thus alienation.
Empathy is not pity.
Empathy is oh my god if I were having this thing that happened to you happen to me I would feel that same thing I'm sure and because I can see you are feeling that I am feeling 1/10 or less of that emotion and it makes me want to ....cry, scream, rage, punch....whatever....just like you are. But I'm not you and I'm not the one going through this so I can only be here for you and acknowledge your pain and be grateful that I'm NOT in your shoes.
Dandylife
-
Hope, you wrote,
"About Rosenburg's book... I have trouble seeing "consoling" and "sympathizing" as life alienating communications... I don't get it.
Sometimes that's all anyone can do, isn't it? The very best anyone can do, I'd think. At least I'd have been glad for it so many times."
I think what they mean by alienating is that once you sympathize (I've always heard it's 'pity') or console someone, it puts you "one up" on them. As if you are above them, all objective, and you somehow are in a place to "make" them feel better. I am here - you are there - thus alienation.
Empathy is not pity.
Empathy is oh my god if I were having this thing that happened to you happen to me I would feel that same thing I'm sure and because I can see you are feeling that I am feeling 1/10 or less of that emotion and it makes me want to ....cry, scream, rage, punch....whatever....just like you are. But I'm not you and I'm not the one going through this so I can only be here for you and acknowledge your pain and be grateful that I'm NOT in your shoes.
Dandylife
Wow, Dandy... I am definitely struggling under a confusion of terms.
See.. I've always thought of pity as having connotations of condescension... and sometimes even contempt;
but to try to console a person, I thought was to offer hugs and a listening ear, and to remind her that it'll be alright.
Isn't it consoling my child when he falls and skins his knee and I tend to him and offer him comfort?
Or is that the problem... adults can rightfully console children but not other adults?
Sheesh, I am feeling dense.
According to my previous (wrong!) definition of empathy, I was directly placing myself into the other person's shoes and feeling 100% for them when possible....
And then I'd try to console someone when I didn't have the ability to relate to what he was going through (because I couldn't imagine)...
if that makes sense.
:?
Sure hope to get this straight some time soon. Thanks so much for helping me!
I love your definition of empathy, by the way. It was that bit of recent understanding info which began to free me from loads of bondage withiin enmeshed relationships.
With love,
Hope
-
Hope,
I think alot of people make this mistake when trying to make others feel better.
Has anyone ever said to you, "there, there. It'll be okay." How did it make you feel?
Or the worst, "I know how you feel." I've seen people go from sad or grief-stricken to enraged and angry and yelling, "You do NOT know how I feel!"
After dealing with a borderline (read: high-strung emotional mess) for 2 decades, and making all these mistakes, I finally asked what should I do?
He said ask, "Is there anything I can do to help?"
Or, just metaphorically jump to his side like a partner holding hands and say, "what a jerk!" (so many incidents and emotional flare ups are about what other people said or did to "hurt" him. I made the huge mistake of trying to justify or explain away others' mysterious behaviors - to no avail - and making things worse. Now, I have a new mantra, "what a jerk!" And he feels so understood!
Hope some of this helps.
Also, with kids - yes, they are deserving of our consoling at times, but I like the words comfort and soothing better. Make them more comfortable and soothe their hurt bodies and hurt feelings.
I guess it's not that different for adults - we nurture those we love in the most mothering ways, don't we?
Dandylife
-
GS,
Just wanted to reply to you about your thread (knocking self on head):
In reply 59, Bella French stated,
"Paul seems to be very interested getting the upper hand in his friendship with you, don't you think? He seems to intuitively sense that the key to getting the upper hand with you is to get you to forfeit your boundaries, if not convince you that you are downright faulty for having any. I think what hes doing, unconsciously or otherwise, is trying to get to a place with you where you are vulnerable and defer to his way of thinking. Maybe he thinks physical intimacy or sex will give him the leverage he needs. But anyway, I think its really about power. Why do you think he wants power in your relationship? Could it be his natural impulse, or do you think he is challenged by your way of thinking and lack of deference and has become insecure? Or some other reason? Its food for thought."
In my opinion, if this guy is saying all this stuff to you in email, he's got a definite problem with these things:
1 - grandiose sense of self
2 - wants the last word
3 - thinks you'll be impressed
4 - underlying insecurity (he is NOT saying these things to your face)
These are not things to say to someone important to you in EMAIL. These are also not things you'd take the time to say to someone who is NOT important to you.
So, if you're not important to him, then he has an extremely inappropriate sense of what your relationship is. If you ARE important to him, then I suggest you tell him that if he has something important like this to say to you, you'd like to discuss it face to face so that you can dialogue and not be given a monologue to read. (!)
He sounds like an interesting fellow, obviously well read. But I can't get over that self-importance that comes through clearly. I'd say big yellow warning signal, unless in person you guys give and take in conversations well.
Just an opinion! Have fun getting to know him better but keep your boundaries rigid!
Dandylife
-
Hope,
I think alot of people make this mistake when trying to make others feel better.
Has anyone ever said to you, "there, there. It'll be okay." How did it make you feel?
Or the worst, "I know how you feel." I've seen people go from sad or grief-stricken to enraged and angry and yelling, "You do NOT know how I feel!"
After dealing with a borderline (read: high-strung emotional mess) for 2 decades, and making all these mistakes, I finally asked what should I do?
He said ask, "Is there anything I can do to help?"
Or, just metaphorically jump to his side like a partner holding hands and say, "what a jerk!" (so many incidents and emotional flare ups are about what other people said or did to "hurt" him. I made the huge mistake of trying to justify or explain away others' mysterious behaviors - to no avail - and making things worse. Now, I have a new mantra, "what a jerk!" And he feels so understood!
Hope some of this helps.
Also, with kids - yes, they are deserving of our consoling at times, but I like the words comfort and soothing better. Make them more comfortable and soothe their hurt bodies and hurt feelings.
I guess it's not that different for adults - we nurture those we love in the most mothering ways, don't we?
Dandylife
Dear Dandylife,
I really had to think about this, because I can't recall ever receiving much in the way of "there, there, it'll be okay".
My husband is the only person in my life who's ever really asked me about my feelings... and he has said something to that effect, back when we were newlyweds and npd-ex was seeking vengeance by dragging me through the court under contempt charges.
And I do recall how I felt... dismissed. He didn't get the whole npd thing and the reasons for my deep concern. He viewed N as just a cheap con-artist... until the end, when he finally did see the whole picture more clearly.
But I've said that myself, when I've felt overwhelmed by someone's grief... I didn't know. I guess the best to be said is, "I'm here... I'll listen".
And I've encountered the reactions to "I know how you feel"... so I can grasp that and see why it's presumptuous and wrong and offensive.
I can sure remember times when all I wanted to hear was a "What a jerk!!" :) ... not a story about somebody else's jerky encounter or a solution to the issue. (Although I think it's okay here on the board, at some point, to offer similar stories... for educational purposes, as we all learn together?)
When you set "comfort" and "soothe" next to "console", I see the difference more clearly. Console... minimizes. The others are more... accepting.
Sometimes with this stuff I feel as though I have a learning disability, but I'm getting it... slowly. Thank you so much, Dandy, for taking the time to give me these lessons. I'll be practicing!
With much love,
Hope
-
Hope,
Glad to be helpful! I've made so many conversations worse with the best of intentions, so I willed myself to hang in and learn how to do it better.
Much love,
Dandylife
-
These are not things to say to someone important to you in EMAIL. These are also not things you'd take the time to say to someone who is NOT important to you.
So, if you're not important to him, then he has an extremely inappropriate sense of what your relationship is. If you ARE important to him, then I suggest you tell him that if he has something important like this to say to you, you'd like to discuss it face to face so that you can dialogue and not be given a monologue to read. (!)
Dandy Life - you've got it. You see - there really isn't a "relationship" of ANY kind. There is sort of an acquaintence and some shared interests. I think you've got it when you say, "he has an extremely inappropriate sense of what your relationship is."
I've decided just to let it go. Over the past year on several occassions I've gotten mixed signals and tried to clarify. He would say, "Oh no mixed signals - just looking for a friend." and then the mixed signals would come again. And the whole cycle would repeat itself until this time - now I've had enough. All the mixed signals suggest that he is not as in touch with himself as he would like to be. That he still doesn't see any mixed message between "couples" "breathing" exercises and "just friends" is rather bizarre to me and is just too much like the craziness I've lived with in the past. I haven't heard from him again and don't expect to and that says alot as well.
-
Whew!
I'm actually feeling relieved for you. It seems this person would have been exhausting to have in your life!
(((((GS))))))
Dandylife