"Dare Greatly" - Emotional risk-taking

[intothewoods]

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.

There is an issue of assumption, and although you said the thread is not about you, you used yourself as an example, though vaguely.

Most of what I'm thinking falls under the category of word choice. Here's the thing - we're not discussing a neutral trait, like high metabolism. I eat whatever I want and I'm still skinny. But some people diet all the time and they're still fat. Why? No, emotional availability is generally thought of as something to strive for in our culture.

 

[Homburg]

There is an issue of assumption, and although you said the thread is not about you, you used yourself as an example, though vaguely.

Most of what I'm thinking falls under the category of word choice. Here's the thing - we're not discussing a neutral trait, like high metabolism. I eat whatever I want and I'm still skinny. But some people diet all the time and they're still fat. Why? No, emotional availability is generally thought of as something to strive for in our culture.

And? Are we not allowed to discuss such things? Are we so worried about offense that we can't discuss non-neutral topics? I worded it differently than you would've. *shrug* I'm not you. I'm not JM. I'm going to word things differently.

If someone takes exception to word choice, the simplest, and least offensive, thing to do is ask for a clarification.

And, frankly, with oversensitive, thin-skinned types, no trait is neutral. High metabolism and skinny comments caused an enormous flame war here, what, two months ago?

As to striving for emotional availability, JM's example of PYL's that specifically choose to enter into purposefully emotionally distant relationship is a good example of a time when it would be appropriate to enter into a relationship when intending to be unavailable. I meant to say that before, but managed to delete the comment. Feh.

 

[intothewoods]

Of course we can discuss non-neutral topics. You can say whatever you want. But you were also confused by the reaction and why this was made to be about you. Well, my response is because you used yourself as an example.

And yes, high metabolism was perhaps not the best example.

 

[Shankara20]

attempting to not get hung-up / strung-up on work choice - I jump in.

For many many years I was the emotionally unavailable type - even through the loss of someone dear to me. I did eventually take the risk to fall in love again - and eventually that marriage fell apart. It was during that falling apart that I learned that my emotional unavailability was linked directly to my attempt to avoid my anger - anger was went way back to childhood. For me, and I expect for some others, there is only one on/off switch. I turned off what I thought was the anger switch not knowing that I was also switching off my other emotions as well - please understand I am not saying I had a flat affect but that I was not feel deep emotions.

A great deal of work opened me up to my feelings and then to my ability to express those feelings. All was a lovely emotional romp for awhile - I discovered BDSM and my bi-sexuality while open. Then it all went to poop again. Only this time I did not totally shut down, but I did withhold my interest in being with others as lovers - the risk was too great.

For 5 years I refused to engage a lover - but that has now changed

For the last 20 years I have expressed my feelings, told my friends and family exactly how I felt whenever asked "how are you?" I express joy, sorrow - all of them. But I was not ready to open to a new lover that past 5 years, still needed time to heal - due to the love of someone willing to hang around until I could see what was there in front of me, wanting to give me her love, I was finely able to say "oh what the hell - let's have another go at this"

In the work I do with those working through the trauma of rape I see that each of us has our own way of dealing with our feelings - and our own timetable for dealing with stuff. Some of us start to change when the pain of being who we are becomes a problem - being emotionally unavailable may be a way of dealing with something painful and we might choose to explore other ways of being.... eventually.

It can be an adventure in self discovery.

Good question to ponder

 

[Homburg]

Of course we can discuss non-neutral topics. You can say whatever you want. But you were also confused by the reaction and why this was made to be about you. Well, my response is because you used yourself as an example.

And yes, high metabolism was perhaps not the best example.

Very vague example intended to show that I wasn't being a complete voyeur, and was followed by explicitly stating that the thread was not about me.

And, from my perspective, high metabolism was the perfect example

 

[Homburg]

Excellent post, Shanks, thank you.

It did cause me to ponder something about how this thread is going. The focus is almost entirely on the lack of availability caused by damage and loss. Is that always the case? Are we assuming that emotional availbility is the default setting, and that anyone unavailable is somehow damaged? Is it possible to just be unavailable regardless of damage?

I would agree that damage seems prevalent in these cases, at least anecdotally, but there must exist those people who are just that way normally. Yes? No?

 

[catalina_francisco]

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.

LOL, you obviously have more energy and imagination than I to get all that from my little post. As to less pain in the world, on that I agree but tend to see it as more easily reached if so many people today did not have so much aggression inside which they find best directed at others instead of dealing with it in themselves. Must be the counsellor in me or maybe it is just I am too sick to really know or care at the moment. I leave it to those who have all the answers and none of the questions which seem to fill the heads of people like myself and Homburg and a few others I will not mention out of respect. Carry on.

Catalina

 

[Shankara20]

Excellent post, Shanks, thank you.

It did cause me to ponder something about how this thread is going. The focus is almost entirely on the lack of availability caused by damage and loss. Is that always the case? Are we assuming that emotional availbility is the default setting, and that anyone unavailable is somehow damaged? Is it possible to just be unavailable regardless of damage?

I would agree that damage seems prevalent in these cases, at least anecdotally, but there must exist those people who are just that way normally. Yes? No?

I expect the price of socializing we all go through - from parents, schools, neighborhoods, churches - tend to discourage self-expression and I feel this can support a distancing from feelings. And this sounds like a reaction to some sort of damage doesn't it?

There are some that might just be prone to introspection and without support and encouragement do not learn how to "feel others".

There are some conditions, developmental / medical, that prevent some from connecting to others on a feeling level but I expect that is not what you are discussing.

Nature - Nurture?
yes, but in what % in each case?

 

[Shankara20]

I leave it to those who have all the answers and none of the questions....

...I will not mention out of respect. Carry on.

Catalina

oh - go ahead and mention me anytime you wish

 

[catalina_francisco]

oh - go ahead and mention me anytime you wish

LOL, OK, I add you to the list.

Catalina

 

[Shankara20]

LOL, OK, I add you to the list.

Catalina

thank you - It does me no good to be a know-it-all if no one else knows

 

[catalina_francisco]

thank you - It does me no good to be a know-it-all if no one else knows

This is so true, and seeing I have been busy awarding people for their wonderful talents elsewhere and when conscious enough, why should I leave out one of my favourite people?!!

Catalina

 

[Homburg]

I expect the price of socializing we all go through - from parents, schools, neighborhoods, churches - tend to discourage self-expression and I feel this can support a distancing from feelings. And this sounds like a reaction to some sort of damage doesn't it?

True that. This idea lends itself to the thought that everyone is damaged though. If so, would emotional availability be the base line? Would it not be something to work towards, and thus not somehow a failing if it is not present?

There are some that might just be prone to introspection and without support and encouragement do not learn how to "feel others".

There are some conditions, developmental / medical, that prevent some from connecting to others on a feeling level but I expect that is not what you are discussing.

Nature - Nurture?
yes, but in what % in each case?

So many emotional quandaries boil down to that question indeed.

 

[Shankara20]

True that. This idea lends itself to the thought that everyone is damaged though. If so, would emotional availability be the base line? Would it not be something to work towards, and thus not somehow a failing if it is not present?

I do think emotional availability is by-and-large a base line - just watch most infants and toddlers. I also believe socialization can take place without emotional damage, but awareness and concern of the forces involved, parents, schools, neighborhoods, churches, is a must. Guilt, shame and violence cannot be tools.

So many emotional quandaries boil down to that question indeed.

Nature - Nurture?
yes, but in what % in each case?

I subscribe to the mix the "nature/nurture with a portion of external factors" theory of development. Our nature as encouraged by the nurturing received and influenced by the world events around us contribute greatly to who we are. A soft quite sort of child born into a family with a caring father and a bitter mother living in Baghdad today will, I expect, be an interesting emotion mix.

It would be great if nurture were the only, or at least, major influencer. Then all we needed would be for the behavioral specialists to map out how to bring up happy healthy nonviolent kids and the world will eventually have peace forever. But with that nasty old nature playing a part there will always be a wild card in bringing up people. And what do we do about stopping a tornado from killing mom and dad and leaving poor little 6 years old kiddo in a wheat field for two days?

God can be such a bitch at times....

 

[Homburg]

I do think emotional availability is by-and-large a base line - just watch most infants and toddlers. I also believe socialization can take place without emotional damage, but awareness and concern of the forces involved, parents, schools, neighborhoods, churches, is a must. Guilt, shame and violence cannot be tools.

I guess I can see that. Yet I look at my 7yr old and I already see her controlling her emotions and responses. Makes me wonder what sort of damage I've inflicted.

Parenting is scary business.

Nature - Nurture?
yes, but in what % in each case?

I subscribe to the mix the "nature/nurture with a portion of external factors" theory of development. Our nature as encouraged by the nurturing received and influenced by the world events around us contribute greatly to who we are. A soft quite sort of child born into a family with a caring father and a bitter mother living in Baghdad today will, I expect, be an interesting emotion mix.

It would be great if nurture were the only, or at least, major influencer. Then all we needed would be for the behavioral specialists to map out how to bring up happy healthy nonviolent kids and the world will eventually have peace forever. But with that nasty old nature playing a part there will always be a wild card in bringing up people. And what do we do about stopping a tornado from killing mom and dad and leaving poor little 6 years old kiddo in a wheat field for two days?

God can be such a bitch at times....

True that. I look at myself and wonder what parts come from nature, and which from nurture. It can be interesting. Same with my kids. I look at them and wonder what parts of my psyche will bubble up in them.

 

[BiBunny]

I don't think, necessarily, that being emotionally unavailable is always a bad thing. Don't we all have that friend who jumps into one relationship after another, convinced that this one is The One? Each time, the relationships don't work out, usually because these people too clingy and too needy for someone else to fix everything. They wear their hearts on their sleeves and will fall in love over and over and over, hoping that this time, it'll really work out, and never take the time to look at themselves and figure out what it is they really need. They look for happiness in other people, and they're never going to find it because happiness is something you can only find/make/have for yourself.

In my own experience with myself, my friends, and what little bit I did as a practicum while I was finishing up my bachelor's, I've found what 00Syd says to be true.

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.

I want to say more, but I'm unsure at the moment about how to say it and if it even applies to the discussion or not.

 

[catalina_francisco]

Ah, but as the saying goes, better to have loved and lost than to never have loved at all. ...or better to have loved and lost more than once than to have done so once and thrown away the key in response.

Catalina

 

[Essene]

Ah, but as the saying goes, better to have loved and lost than to never have loved at all. ...or better to have loved and lost more than once than to have done so once and thrown away the key in response.

Catalina

I'm laughing so hard it hurts!

 

[Shankara20]

I guess I can see that. Yet I look at my 7yr old and I already see her controlling her emotions and responses. Makes me wonder what sort of damage I've inflicted.

As a parent myself, and not to let you off the hook for your own parenting screw-ups , I suggest that at 7 your daughter is being influenced by her playmates, school, TV, movies, music, news, conversations she overhears, etc, etc, etc, in ways you can not possibility consider.


I have just reminded myself of Khalil Gibran - so here it is.



And a woman who held a baby against her bosom said,
- Speak To Us of Children!

And he said:
They are the sons and daughters of Life's longing for itself.
They come trough you but not from you,
And though they are with you yet they belong not to you.
You may give them your love but not your thoughts,
For they have their own thoughts.
You may house their bodies but not their souls,
For their souls dwell in the house of to-narrow,
which you cannot visit, not even in your dreams.
You may strive to be like them,
but seek not to make them like you.
For life goes not backward nor tarries with yesterday.

You are the bows from which your children as living arrows are sent forth.
The archer sees the mark upon the path of the infinite,
and He bends you with His might that His arrows may go swift and far.
Let your bending in the Archer's hand be for gladness;
For even as He loves the arrow that flies,
so He loves also the bow that is stable.

Khalil Gibran, in his book The Prophet

 

[JMohegan]

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



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.

Yes. Thank you.

When I say "emotionally destroyed is a relative concept", I am not in any way dismissing the pain that people feel on the non-extreme parts of the spectrum. Pain can be excruciating even if it does not have debilitating long-term consequences. Nothing I have written on this thread contradicts that fact.

At some points along that spectrum, it seems reasonable to ask, essentially: I've been burned in love, and yet I'm still here loving, why can't other people be daring like me? But farther out on the spectrum, "daring" is truly beside the point, because the tools one needs to function effectively have been significantly damaged. That's my point.

To incorporate Shankara's comments about childhood into my observation, I would say that a combination of fortunate nature & positive nurture may help to protect one's mental "tools" from damage in certain circumstances. They may also help to eventually heal (i.e., repair those tools), more rapidly than might otherwise be the case.

 

[unpredictablebijou]

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.

I've just caught up on this thread. Like so many of your posts, Serijules, I'm impressed by how articulate this is, and it's a point I want to expand on.

I've been in relationships where I could tell the story that the people were not what I thought, not what I believed, and gotten hurt and ripped off, both materially and emotionally. But what I figured out over time was that in those cases it was my bad for not understanding well enough the actual nature of the creature I was dealing with.

I must add that that sentiment must be spoken without anger or judgment for it to truly be a Clue. It's not - o you were a psycho bastard and you fooled me, but - Had I not wanted to believe differently about you, I'd have been able to see that given a choice between me and $7000, or me and your social standing, or me and your anger, you are someone who will choose the latter. Again, my bad.

Understand before this analogy that I love skunks. Love them. So it's not a slanted metaphor.

If you get involved with me and you make yourself believe that I have a particular nature (and I'd like to think I'm pretty honest, but mistakes can be made), you're essentially choosing to believe that I am a cat, when in fact if you looked honestly you'd notice right away that I'm actually a skunk. So when I eventually behave like a skunk, whose fault is it that somebody gets sprayed? Mine, or the person who was in denial about my nature to begin with?

This assumes of course that I'm not a lying psychopath, but just a regular human who may or may not be completely self-aware, or completely impeccably honest with myself and the people around me. It's absolutely my responsibility to communicate my nature and my priorities, but it's your responsibility to hear that without denial. If you're saying, 'all she needs is the love of a good man and she'll give up her wild child ways' and I end up causing you injury when I don't meet that expectation, whose fault is that?

Similarly, with the heartless bastards who have occasionally betrayed me over the years, I must come to the point of being able to say, 'it was my fault for not noticing earlier that what I was dealing with was not a cat, but rather something somewhat stinkier.' No judgment; a skunk is a fine thing to be, UNLESS you talk yourself into believing it was something else.

We fall in love and we want to believe people are perfect. We get hurt when they show evidence of Not Being That. But what serijules says here is absolutely true; the challenge then is to learn to trust oneself again, to not punish ourselves for being fooled, and to resolve to be more open-eyed about the nature of those we get involved with.

Just my two scents.

bijou, aka Skunk.

and by the way, Shankara, thank you for the Gibran. it's one of my favorites.

 

[Netzach]

LOL, you obviously have more energy and imagination than I to get all that from my little post. As to less pain in the world, on that I agree but tend to see it as more easily reached if so many people today did not have so much aggression inside which they find best directed at others instead of dealing with it in themselves. Must be the counsellor in me or maybe it is just I am too sick to really know or care at the moment. I leave it to those who have all the answers and none of the questions which seem to fill the heads of people like myself and Homburg and a few others I will not mention out of respect. Carry on.

Catalina

I'm not arguing with you, your post kind of just inspired the thought in response to Syd's. I tend to be very on edge when people talk optimistically about somehow giving socratic birth to someone else's emotions, doing them the favor of unlocking them. I think we both probably agree that this is the work a person does or doesn't for themselves.

 

[Netzach]

I've just caught up on this thread. Like so many of your posts, Serijules, I'm impressed by how articulate this is, and it's a point I want to expand on.

I've been in relationships where I could tell the story that the people were not what I thought, not what I believed, and gotten hurt and ripped off, both materially and emotionally. But what I figured out over time was that in those cases it was my bad for not understanding well enough the actual nature of the creature I was dealing with.

I must add that that sentiment must be spoken without anger or judgment for it to truly be a Clue. It's not - o you were a psycho bastard and you fooled me, but - Had I not wanted to believe differently about you, I'd have been able to see that given a choice between me and $7000, or me and your social standing, or me and your anger, you are someone who will choose the latter. Again, my bad.

Understand before this analogy that I love skunks. Love them. So it's not a slanted metaphor.

If you get involved with me and you make yourself believe that I have a particular nature (and I'd like to think I'm pretty honest, but mistakes can be made), you're essentially choosing to believe that I am a cat, when in fact if you looked honestly you'd notice right away that I'm actually a skunk. So when I eventually behave like a skunk, whose fault is it that somebody gets sprayed? Mine, or the person who was in denial about my nature to begin with?

This assumes of course that I'm not a lying psychopath, but just a regular human who may or may not be completely self-aware, or completely impeccably honest with myself and the people around me. It's absolutely my responsibility to communicate my nature and my priorities, but it's your responsibility to hear that without denial. If you're saying, 'all she needs is the love of a good man and she'll give up her wild child ways' and I end up causing you injury when I don't meet that expectation, whose fault is that?

Similarly, with the heartless bastards who have occasionally betrayed me over the years, I must come to the point of being able to say, 'it was my fault for not noticing earlier that what I was dealing with was not a cat, but rather something somewhat stinkier.' No judgment; a skunk is a fine thing to be, UNLESS you talk yourself into believing it was something else.

We fall in love and we want to believe people are perfect. We get hurt when they show evidence of Not Being That. But what serijules says here is absolutely true; the challenge then is to learn to trust oneself again, to not punish ourselves for being fooled, and to resolve to be more open-eyed about the nature of those we get involved with.

Just my two scents.

bijou, aka Skunk.

and by the way, Shankara, thank you for the Gibran. it's one of my favorites.

This is exactly what I was trying to say. A whole lot of people are going to run around pointing at the Skunk going, did you see that? She's a...a...SKUNK!!!

Even after having a lengthy discussion about the white stripes on my back and my rather aggressive scent glands, it's a shocker. I'm a horrible liar.

 

[unpredictablebijou]

This is exactly what I was trying to say. A whole lot of people are going to run around pointing at the Skunk going, did you see that? She's a...a...SKUNK!!!

Even after having a lengthy discussion about the white stripes on my back and my rather aggressive scent glands, it's a shocker. I'm a horrible liar.

LOL

*nodding, nodding*

"I mean, what did you think it meant when I started to raise my tail? I gave you plenty of warning."

(actual skunks do, too. I love that about them. They give you plenty of time to figure it out and change your mind. They really don't want any trouble. But if you insist on hanging around being obnoxious and rude, well....)

sign me Stinky

 

[catalina_francisco]

I'm not arguing with you, your post kind of just inspired the thought in response to Syd's. I tend to be very on edge when people talk optimistically about somehow giving socratic birth to someone else's emotions, doing them the favor of unlocking them. I think we both probably agree that this is the work a person does or doesn't for themselves.

Ah, don't take notice of me, I am just tired of feeling like I will never have energy again. Sorry if I came off a little stroppy. And yes, we agree, it is something people have to do the work on themselves. Sort of like telling someone to stop smoking or taking heroin...if they don't want to do it for themselves, no amount of telling them to will make them quit. All part of the lessons of life I think.

Catalina