From: erc@unislc.uucp (Ed Carp)
Subject: Re: Survivor in denial?
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5
Organization: Unisys Corporation SLC
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 18:38:33 GMT

Teresa Kline (aatresa@lims02.lerc.nasa.gov) wrote:

: In article <1992Sep3.224011.6115@unislc.uucp>, erc@unislc.uucp (Ed Carp) writes...
: >Heart Dancer (barbaraj@sacajawea.csc.ti.com) wrote:

: >: I *do* think we are each justified in setting boundaries that keep us as
: >: safe as we feel we need to be.  We are also responsible for the
: >: consequences of setting the boundaries.  It may be that the
: >: consequence of Scot's friend setting her boundary is that she loses
: >: the friendship of someone who could be a very real support to her.
: >: But I am not in a position to give her feedback.  She hasn't asked me.
: 
: other stuff deleted
: 
: >: Who is he (or you or I) to judge how she should react to him.  Who is
: >: he (or you or I) to judge her recovery process.
: > 
: 
: >of abuse disorders - it says that one party has more rights than another,
: >and that party should *take* those rights, by force if necessary.  Doesn't
: >this strike you as a bit lopsided?
: 
: Heart Dancer is *not* taking away Scot's rights.  She is merely giving him 
Huh?  I didn't say that.  I said that Scot's antagonist (for lack of a better
term) is attacking Scot with her aggressive boundaries (as opposed to assertive
boundaries).

: a survivor's perspective...*her* perspective.  And I don't understand the 
: previous statement.  I don't think that by cutting off contact with someone 
: I have trampled on their rights, or taken away any of their rights.  Scot 

Perhaps because you don't look at their side of the coin.  If you are friends
with someone, and they cut you off for no rational reason, GODDAMNIT, THAT
HURTS!  How many times have *you* been dumped on like that?  Did it hurt?
Of *course* it did!  But you would say it's OK for Scot's antagonist to do
the same to him?  That's called "hurting someone else unnecessarily", and
no amount of politically correct posturing and rationalization is going to
change the fact that someone else got hurt, and that hurt was unnecessary.
As for those who would argue that "well, she had no choice" I would argue that
if Scot wasn't the initial abuser, there are *always* more rational and
humane somutions than cutting someone else off at the knees.  Your personal
pain may be understandable, but it's not a justification for hurting other
people.  I get *so* tired of the old saw that "I was hurt, so if I hurt
someone else, I'm excused".  That's not only mindless rationalization, it's
*very* self-destructive.  That's what turns abused into abusers.


: And could you explain your earlier statement that by A shutting out B, A 
: has placed the burden of the boundary on B?  I don't understand what kind 
: of burden is placed on B when A says "Leave me alone."  At that point, B 
: leaves A alone.  What burden is there?

Because B hasn't had *any* choice in the matter.  All of a sudden, the rules
have changed from "we decide, we share" to "I decide, fuck off".  You want
the rules to be fair for you, don't you?  You want stability, security, and
friends that will stick by you, don't you?  But you don't want to return
the favor.  (Please note that I'm not speaking of "you" as the personal
Teresa - I'm speaking of "you" as the generic abused person).  Treat others
as you would like to be treated.  If you want consideration, give consider-
ation!  But don't expect everyone around you to fawn over you and bow down
to your every whim just because you've been abused.
-- 
Ed Carp, N7EKG     erc@apple.com                801/538-0177
"This is the final task I will ever give you, and it  goes  on  forever.   Act
happy, feel happy, be happy, without a reason in the world. Then you can love,
and do what you will."           -- Dan Millman, "Way Of The Peaceful Warrior"
Newsgroups: alt.sexual.abuse.recovery