From: gery@midway.uchicago.edu (Black Pearl)
Newsgroups: alt.sexual.abuse.recovery
Subject: Re: For Black Pearl
Date: 14 Apr 92 18:01:07 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago

In article <1992Apr11.080449.29184@wpi.wpi.edu>, Prisoner writes:
> 
> [stuff I wrote deleted]
>
> Wonderful!
> 
> I'm not being sarcastic or anything. One of the great myths
> is that there is something wrong with being angry and
> something even more wrong with doing things from one's
> anger. That you could be angry and deal with it without
> being self-destructive is a good thing.

Yes; it's very empowering to perceive oneself as protecting one's boundaries.

> 
> [discusson of terms deleted]
>

I reread your discussion several times and each time I felt power draining
away, which confused me initially. But, as always, you provide food for
thought. I have done such mental exercises before when trying to analyze
something and usually found the same thing, that the trail I was on became
cold and devoid of sustenance. My sense is that it's not the presence of
something (intelligence), but the absence of something (instinct). I
think the reason my (let's immortalize it then :-) ) "angry" post was
so empowering for me was because it contained both "intelligence" (an
understanding that my boundaries were being crossed) and "instinct" 
("fight back"). In my younger, angrier days, I often responded with just
the instinctual anger, and that was not at all empowering. Or just the 
intelligence, and that just turned me into a pressure cooker. So, to me, 
to try and pin down words like "acceptance," "approval," etc., with purely
intellectual reasonings feels like I would be giving power away, because
I would be missing half the equation. To me, it would be like eating
the leaves of the carrot without bothering to dig deeper and see that
there was something even more substantial attached to it.

Yikes - all these food analogies; it must be lunchtime!


> ...As most people use the term, acceptance means pretty much
> feeling comfortable with or approving of. Is that how
> you use it?

Pretty much. Webster's 9th says: "...to receive willingly... to give
admittance or approval to... to endure without protest or reaction..."
and that's how I use it. Since I did not intend "to endure without
protest," to me that meant I was NOT accepting. Webster also says
"to recognize as true: believe;" maybe that's closer to how you use it.
As I say, though, I'm not really into the intellectual argument.

 
> ....I do think that you went overboard in transferring your
> judgement of what I did into a judgement of what I am. But
> in the final analysis, my opinion of that is irrelevant;
> what counts is yours.

Yes, I did. Though I did not do so in my head, in my post I transferred a
judgement of your behavior into a judgement of what you are, and for that
I apologize.


> .... But what is "behave yourself"?

Horrible choice of words, I know. Basically I meant be respectful of the
people in the group and their preferences, whatever the group. Meaning,
don't join a nudist camp if you think nudity is shameful. Don't
go to Warsaw and expect the menus to be in English. Don't post on 
ASAR if you've got a score to settle with the world. It's ok to be a prude,
unwilling to learn foreign languages, or become a master flame-thrower;
the thing is, if that's where "you're" at, then go where other people are
that way too. A lot (most?) of the people who read ASAR are wounded.
They/we don't need to be attacked; we KNOW what that's all about! We want
to learn what it's like - as you do - to be accepted. We aren't different
from you in that respect! BTW, this isn't directed at you personally
although on re-read it sounds like it is. From my point of view, if a
person wants to throw flames, seek out partners for s&m trysts, suggest
that our experiences do not constitute abuse, etc., then while that 
person is certainly welcome to read, I think they should =post= elsewhere.
We don't need to be hurt any more than we already have been, and it's
really sad if our one safe place starts to feel not-safe because we are
flaming each other, etc. And, yes, I violated my own "rule" with my angry
post. Sim's response was the appropriate (non-abusive) one. 


> 
> .... For all our supposed lack of social skills and all the other
> negatives in our lives, we are probably the most considerate
> large group on the entire net!
> 
> .... It's a dilemma alright. No matter what you do, someone will
> be upset or offended. So, farg 'em and me too. Do what YOU
> think right. As for what I think, if it matters, I'd much
> rather have the acceptance of your anger than the rejection
> of your silence. I've been invisible far too long.

Hear, hear! Now all I have to do is find a way to "reject" posts I
consider abusive without rejecting the poster. Back to "behave yourself" -
a way to say "that kind of post is not appropriate for this group" in a
way that clearly expresses my feelings and also gets the message (and
is hopefully listened to?) across.

Sorry if this was a bit fragmented, I'm kind of tired today.

Black Pearl