"Dare Greatly" - Emotional risk-taking

[JMohegan]

That came up on the poly thread, and it's interesting.

Personally I think that's an assumption that may not apply. It's harder for me to weather storms emotionally - not necessarily materially, fiscally, or when it comes to being able to be held and not feel alone-- but processing my emotions, going through them, feeling like I can let everything out? I do that better alone. With M I feel a burden of guilt - I'm not being strong, supporting, leaderly, in charge of myself let alone us. If my Bull were to really really hurt and abandon me or were to die, I think it will be harder for me in many ways to have M there, being kind to me, than to have to go it alone a bit. I wouldn't change that, I wouldn't not have it how it is, but I don't think it would mitigate at all, merely change up the set of worries and fears.

My main point here is that "emotionally destroyed" is a relative concept. At the very least, there's a spectrum. And if you would still be feeling guilt, concern for M, etc., then you would still be functioning pretty far from one end of that spectrum.

I'm not trying to say that it's impossible for someone in a poly situation to be deeply hurt or even emotionally destroyed. I apologize if I gave that impression.

 

[intothewoods]

We have a win.

I don't consider myself open or not open. It depends who you ask. I'm very hard to get rid of once you've got me.

I'm better at applying brakes and making compartments than some people are, and worse at both than others. Both of those aren't necessarily bad skills to have. I do notice that if I choose not to be with someone who wants to be with me, there follows a list of unflattering attributes that must be mine. It's OK, I've done this to others, but I did more or less outgrow it and some people never seem to. I don't want to be one of those, I'd rather be able to honestly say that, right or wrong, I cashed in my emotional chips on the people I did that with, and in the end, whether they stuck around or ran off with them, it was worth it and my choice.

I guess, and this plays off of JMohegan's post, it really does depend on what relationships we're talking about. When Homburg posted, I immediately envisioned that stereotype of an emotionally unavailable guy, and maybe even more from a monogamous perspective. A heterosexual one too. Again, the cliche - the girl who keeps picking guys who don't want to go the distance. That sort of thing.

I certainly am not emotionally available to everyone, though I am monogamous, and I am emotionally available in my romantic relationship. And by that I just mean, I could see being emotionally unavailable if I were to have a non-romantic D/s secondary relationship. I also happen to believe emotional boundaries are a very good thing, and it's not at all bad to take it slow with your feelings. To just be smart when you're talking about your life and who you're going to spend it with, buy a house with, make babies with, make a family with, etc.

Anyway, the bottom line is, it does make sense to define our terms.

 

[intothewoods]

My main point here is that "emotionally destroyed" is a relative concept. At the very least, there's a spectrum. And if you would still be feeling guilt, concern for M, etc., then you would still be functioning pretty far from one end of that spectrum.

I'm not trying to say that it's impossible for someone in a poly situation to be deeply hurt or even emotionally destroyed. I apologize if I gave that impression.

Some psychologists theorize that we choose partners that resemble our primary caregivers (yes, I'm citing my favorite book again...) again and again until we can heal that primal wound, whatever it was. I think "emotionally destroyed," truly emotionally destroyed, in my mind means some serious shit went down in childhood.

 

[Netzach]

My main point here is that "emotionally destroyed" is a relative concept. At the very least, there's a spectrum. And if you would still be feeling guilt, concern for M, etc., then you would still be functioning pretty far from one end of that spectrum.

I'm not trying to say that it's impossible for someone in a poly situation to be deeply hurt or even emotionally destroyed. I apologize if I gave that impression.

Oh, I didn't really view "emotionally destroyed" in a really literal light, you know. Bottomed out, on top of the building, pondering the jump kind of thing....a more mundane and common kind of crushed or anguished.

I have seen what happens when people feel like an unsuccessful relationship in their past gives them the right to treat another person like absolute and total shit. My mother had to be hospitalized over the depression this man spun her into. It's pretty inexcuseable no matter what suffering you think you're doing in your little bubble.

Then again, she picked him. Ugh.

 

[JMohegan]

Some psychologists theorize that we choose partners that resemble our primary caregivers (yes, I'm citing my favorite book again...) again and again until we can heal that primal wound, whatever it was. I think "emotionally destroyed," truly emotionally destroyed, in my mind means some serious shit went down in childhood.

Truly emotionally destroyed, in my mind, means that the normal emotional functioning of an individual has been eradicated, or nearly eradicated, on a permanent or semi-permanent basis.

Childhood trauma may cause this, but "serious shit" can also happen to adults.

 

[intothewoods]

Truly emotionally destroyed, in my mind, means that the normal emotional functioning of an individual has been eradicated, or nearly eradicated, on a permanent or semi-permanent basis.

Childhood trauma may cause this, but "serious shit" can also happen to adults.

Oh, okay. Yeah, that's an entirely different animal. Are we talking rape victims, victims of torture, soldiers who've witnessed death and killing?

 

[Netzach]

Truly emotionally destroyed, in my mind, means that the normal emotional functioning of an individual has been eradicated, or nearly eradicated, on a permanent or semi-permanent basis.

Childhood trauma may cause this, but "serious shit" can also happen to adults.

I'll argue that few people are levelled, but most people's trees are bent stunted and knotty and very few are growing straight.

 

[JMohegan]

I'll argue that few people are levelled, but most people's trees are bent stunted and knotty and very few are growing straight.

I don't want to argue about this, and numbers are not important.

Everything is relative, and lack of "daring" is not always the problem. That's the essence of what I've been trying to say.

 

[FurryFury]

Some psychologists theorize that we choose partners that resemble our primary caregivers (yes, I'm citing my favorite book again...) again and again until we can heal that primal wound, whatever it was. I think "emotionally destroyed," truly emotionally destroyed, in my mind means some serious shit went down in childhood.

Getting the Love That You Want by Harville Hendricks?

 

[intothewoods]

I don't want to argue about this, and numbers are not important.

Everything is relative, and lack of "daring" is not always the problem. That's the essence of what I've been trying to say.

Exactly. I would say lack of daring is probably rarely the problem. Whatever the cause is, becoming conscious of it is usually a first hurdle. Depending on where one is on the spectrum of emotional availability and psychological trauma, it might not be possible.

Getting the Love That You Want by Harville Hendricks?

Ya, just whoring for my dad Harville again.

Kidding.

 

[FurryFury]

LOL! I found the book useful but it didn't say my first marriage. It makes great sense to me. I recommend it often to others.

 

[Homburg]

The above are *all* rhetorical questions. I absolutely do *not* expect any answers.

If you do want answers, PM or email me, and I'll discuss it. I was serious when I said that this thread was not about anything going on in my life. This isn't a thread about a "friend" *wink, wink, nudge, nudge* I really did have a conversation yesterday that spawned the impetus for this post.

 

[JMohegan]

If you do want answers, PM or email me, and I'll discuss it. I was serious when I said that this thread was not about anything going on in my life. This isn't a thread about a "friend" *wink, wink, nudge, nudge* I really did have a conversation yesterday that spawned the impetus for this post.

No I don't want answers. I understand that this is not about you.

I simply disagree with the premise of your thread. I'll repeat what I said before. The image of a guy with face "marred by dust and sweat and blood" still charging valiantly across the field is dramatic and inspiring, no doubt. But what about the guy who just had both his legs blown off? Lack of "daring" is hardly the reason that he can't stand up.

 

[Netzach]

No I don't want answers. I understand that this is not about you.

I simply disagree with the premise of your thread. I'll repeat what I said before. The image of a guy with face "marred by dust and sweat and blood" still charging valiantly across the field is dramatic and inspiring, no doubt. But what about the guy who just had both his legs blown off? Lack of "daring" is hardly the reason that he can't stand up.

Right.

There IS that guy.

And then there ARE the emotional equivalent of people who have a papercut who just can't go on, and will whine and cry and show everyone and who will demand a handicapped parking space because they have a papercut and will use this as the excuse for any amount of crap they can mete out to anyone around them.

I think there's more of the latter in this world. Men and women, this isn't gendered.

 

[Homburg]

No I don't want answers. I understand that this is not about you.

I simply disagree with the premise of your thread. I'll repeat what I said before. The image of a guy with face "marred by dust and sweat and blood" still charging valiantly across the field is dramatic and inspiring, no doubt. But what about the guy who just had both his legs blown off? Lack of "daring" is hardly the reason that he can't stand up.

You usually disagree with my premise, JM. It's okay, I'm used to it

 

[JMohegan]

Right.

There IS that guy.

Yes. And the idea that somehow he's just not "daring" enough to start charging across the field valiantly is *really* offensive to him.

And then there ARE the emotional equivalent of people who have a papercut who just can't go on, and will whine and cry and show everyone and who will demand a handicapped parking space because they have a papercut and will use this as the excuse for any amount of crap they can mete out to anyone around them.

People with the emotional equivalent of a papercut shouldn't describe themselves as "emotionally destroyed" in the first place. The hyperbole itself is as offensive as the crap they dish out in the process. But that's a whole different thread, surely.

 

[Homburg]

Yes. And the idea that somehow he's just not "daring" enough to start charging across the field valiantly is *really* offensive to him.

People with the emotional equivalent of a papercut shouldn't describe themselves as "emotionally destroyed" in the first place. The hyperbole itself is as offensive as the crap they dish out in the process. But that's a whole different thread, surely.

....

I give up, man. I've tried real hard to read your posts as anything other than baiting. Can't figure out any tone otherwise, and I'm tired of trying.

You obviously dislike my perspective. Do me the favour of putting me on ignore, and I'll do the same for you. It's a simple solution.

You've got my email if you would like to discuss this.

 

[catalina_francisco]

If it's any consolation, I get what you were saying perfectly.

Catalina

 

[JMohegan]

....

I give up, man. I've tried real hard to read your posts as anything other than baiting. Can't figure out any tone otherwise, and I'm tired of trying.

You obviously dislike my perspective. Do me the favour of putting me on ignore, and I'll do the same for you. It's a simple solution.

You've got my email if you would like to discuss this.

This is not baiting. I disagree with the premise of your thread, but not because it was *your* premise.

If you don't have anything on topic to say in response to my comments, that's not my problem. It's yours.

 

[00Syd]

I really enjoyed that TR quote, Teddy might be my favorite president.

I think that often when someone is emotionally unavailable, its not that they like it that way, but are too afraid of making that leap and becoming vulnerable. Some people are more brave than others. I think that those who are afraid to become available aren't wholly unwilling, but need a little coaxing, and a little more reassuring than the rest of us. They may come off as having a cold, hard, impenetrable exterior, but are actually more fragile than those of us who are more open.

 

[intothewoods]

If it's any consolation, I get what you were saying perfectly.

Catalina

I get what both of them are saying. I don't think anyone here doesn't get it.

....

I give up, man. I've tried real hard to read your posts as anything other than baiting. Can't figure out any tone otherwise, and I'm tired of trying.

You obviously dislike my perspective. Do me the favour of putting me on ignore, and I'll do the same for you. It's a simple solution.

You've got my email if you would like to discuss this.

Homburg, I get what you are saying, but I also completely understand JM's point.

One of the points in your original posts is, more or less, I've been burned in love, and yet I'm still here loving. But you used the term "emotionally destroyed," and that's maybe an overstatement if we're talking about rejection, infidelity, dishonesty. Things that are bad, certainly, but perhaps not something that destroys you.

It's a little like talking to someone who lost someone in Iraq and saying, this fucking economy has destroyed my life - I just got laid off.

 

[catalina_francisco]

They may come off as having a cold, hard, impenetrable exterior, but are actually more fragile than those of us who are more open.

Is it really they are more fragile than some others, or possibly they find it works for them in some way, or perhaps those others perceived as being immune to the fragile state have recognised the problem in themselves and done the work it required to take that chance again?

Catalina

 

[Netzach]

Is it really they are more fragile than some others, or possibly they find it works for them in some way, or perhaps those others perceived as being immune to the fragile state have recognised the problem in themselves and done the work it required to take that chance again?

Catalina

Oy.

So much less pain would exist in the world if people met other people and took them as they are, at face value. Like if you get a pit bull, you may not necessarily have an attack dog, but you aren't going to take it duck hunting either - you KNOW what you have, you know the limitations - instead of wondering what can be coaxed, changed, brought out, brought to light.

Just love your pit bull.

 

[serijules]

Each time I'm hurt, I go through the normal stage of mistrust and withdrawal. Eventually, the intensity of the feelings lessen and I am able to try again.

Key word there being TRY.

I'm especially bad about trusting people as friends. I've been burned by a lot of friends, but moreso because they didn't live up to my expectations of the friendship. Not really something I can blame THEM for as they are just being who they are. My perception of what kind of people they were was flawed, and thus, I was hurt.

So when I move on and meet a new friend or open up to a new person, I'm more wary each time. I'm less trusting of my judgement. I'm more sensitive to their reactions to me. But at least I try.

I'm an open person in general. I will answer almost anything asked of me with an open, honest and straight-forward reply. However, when that comes back to bite me in the ass, I'm not always so great at accepting that responsibility.

Basically, *I* hurt me. So in the end, it's *myself* that I have to learn to re-trust again.

 

[Homburg]

Homburg, I get what you are saying, but I also completely understand JM's point.

One of the points in your original posts is, more or less, I've been burned in love, and yet I'm still here loving. But you used the term "emotionally destroyed," and that's maybe an overstatement if we're talking about rejection, infidelity, dishonesty. Things that are bad, certainly, but perhaps not something that destroys you.

It's a little like talking to someone who lost someone in Iraq and saying, this fucking economy has destroyed my life - I just got laid off.

Well, there's an issue of assumption here that presumes that I've not experienced loss simply because I've not talked about it, or that a given loss was not so gosh-darned bad because, y'know, I'm kinda poly. Whatever. This thread is not about me. I thought I made it bloody clear, but I'm apparently going to get analysed because I started it. Whatever. I'm emotionally available. My gal is. The people I tend to associate with are.

I'm not insulted by emotional unavailbility. I'm not offended by it. I'm confused. Made that clear, I thought, and the fact that someone could take objection to my confusion just confuses me more.

And I'm not even going to comment on this level of issue over word choice.