The point is that this absolutely none of your business, and your input is NOT appreciated by either party. And yes, details do matter. Just saying "Hey, Jeff is a bad guy, so I'm entitled to make up any shit I want" IS malicious.
And I would consider it a personal favor if you stayed off ALL my threads from this point on. Thanks in advance.
I think this thread was a highly interesting and often intelligent exploration of a controversial and important issue. Then someone entered the thread with a personal attack that was completely unwarranted.
I have the right to discuss issues that are interesting to me, and will continue to do so.
In the past, I did have an interest in convincing GG to reconsider her position. No longer. Repeat: I no longer have any interest in persuading GG of anything. She's in the past - I'm moving into the future, and am excited about the prospects it offers.
From now on please be assured that whatever threads I post are only because I wish to discuss certain ideas or issues. I'm a philosophical kind of guy who also enjoys discussing psychology. That's it from this point forth.
Remember the Carly Simon song: "You're so vain, you probably think this song is about you, don't you, don't you?"
I agree, H. And please note that it wasn't I who introduced personal attacks or information into this thread.
The truth is that the subject of this thread was not aimed at defending myself or attacking anyone. There's nothing remotely attacking or personal in any of my posts on this thread. The purpose for me was twofold: 1) to better understand the subject; 2) self-exploration - to examine the possibility that I've indulged in these kinds of behavior.
This time I'm guiltless. I wish I could say it feels good.
False. It was three days (I keep a journal, remember?). Also, the claim that I said anything about commitment on the drive home is false. What actually happened is that you were angry at me about spilling water from the flower vase. We had a couple of exchanges about that. End of story.
She never wrote any such thing. If you have no need to make something up, then why do it? That is a general statement which says absolutely nothing about a specific event.
Jeez...I have no interest in replying to your ignorant statements and revisiting this whole mess, but what choice do I have when you make false accusations?
This is what she wrote: "Or someone who, hypothetically, was so obsessed with getting a commitment that he couldn’t stop talking about it - even as they drove home from her Mom’s memorial."
And I think it's quite possible that today she might say that didn't happen, either (her memory of that drive home is based on a dream I told her). I certainly have committed my share of sins; there is no need to falsely and maliciously inflate them.
I will make this very simple: You have not a f*cking clue. But when you write some nonsense like that on a public list, I don't see that I have any choice but to respond.
"Sex on the way home from her mother's funeral"!!?? You are truly the Mistress of Misinformation on this subject, Monte. "Everyone knows"?? Even GG is probably laughing about that.
Man, the legend just grows and grows. Pretty soon I will learn that I stopped off and robbed a bank and forced her to have sex while the police were chasing us home while a UFO hovered overhead studying our deviant behaviors...
(Summarizing and quoting Patrica Evans again, author of Controlling People: How to Recognize, Understand, and Deal with People Who Try to Control You
According to Evans, the controlling individual's partner is to some degree a pretend person – a construct designed to make the controller feel secure. The controller attaches, in effect, to a chimera of his partner. Unfortunately, the real person – what Evans calls the "authentic person" – will deviate frequently from the controller's fantasy person. The controller must then attempt to compel the authentic person to act more like the chimera.
The more the real person deviates from the fantasy person, the more anxious and threatened the controller feels. The more anxious, the more controlling the her or she becomes..
"If the Witness [authentic person] acts in an unanticipated, unscripted, spontaneous way, the Witness is a Spellbreaker. At any moment a Witness may say or do something that threatens to dislodge the Controller – break the connection. The Controller is then unanchored, disconnected from the Witness, alone."
Essentially, the Controller lives in a constant state of fear: at any moment the illusion may be broken (Evans calls this "spellbreaking"). To the degree that the person deviates from their fantasy doppelganger, the controller must take action to re-align the two.
For me, it follows from the fact that controllers can perceive deviations from the chimera that they must be able, on some level, to recognize the actual person. How does the controller handle the cognitive dissonance of perceiving a real person who is different from the illusory one?
Evans doesn't delve into that, but I believe the answer is that we "rationalize" the real person's behavior as not being authentic, and therefore is in need of correction.
And now we enter a rather tricky area, because it is arguably often the case that we are not exactly true to ourselves. It is not necessarily a fixed part of ourselves that we are chronically late, alcoholics, lazy, fearful, or impatient – at least to the extent that we are in this moment.. Our authentic self may vary from what we are now, and a clever controller could employ that possibility to their advantage, believing that they are actually doing their partner a service by encouraging them to unite with their true self.
I don’t think I'm alone in speaking of the temptation to "help" someone become better, believing that if they were true to themselves they wouldn't smoke or be overweight or spend so much time on a singles site.
So how can you tell if someone is an honest-to-god controller as opposed to someone who simply wishes the best for you and is trying to solve problems by attempting to persuade you to change – someone who actually might have your best interests at heart?
I doubt there's a simple answer to that question, but I suspect the basic test is to ask yourself if the "help" your partner is offering you is truly in your best interests (or could possibly be) and doesn't seem to aimed at overruling who you truly are. That's an assessment that may not be cut and dried, but there will be plenty of clues: his anger, insults, insistence on doing things his ways, lack of empathy, and constant picking you apart are signs that your partner is attempting to forge you into his Pretend Person. Over time you will see if he is looking out mostly for you or mostly for himself – and then you will have your answer.
In my view, Bush is a candidate for one of our worst presidents. I really dislike picking on Obama and ignoring the hideous wrongdoings of the Bush Administration (I think Obama is hideous, too; just don't like the double standard).
Obama is filmed running over a cat. He gets out of the car and checks on the poor feline, which is struggling to crawl away. He leaps back in his car and runs over the cat, grinning as he does so.
When the film and story arrives at the evening news, Dude promptly responds by posting the following thread:
"Fabulous Mircy Killing by President Obama Shos How Great He Is. Support!" (Misspellings included for verisimilitude).
Well, judging from my correspondence and the posts I've seen here, Island, some women (and even men) like to be controlled in some sense. I don't have a better description of certain behaviors at this point.
When Do Attempts At Persuasion Become Controlling and Manipulative?
The point is that this absolutely none of your business, and your input is NOT appreciated by either party. And yes, details do matter. Just saying "Hey, Jeff is a bad guy, so I'm entitled to make up any shit I want" IS malicious.And I would consider it a personal favor if you stayed off ALL my threads from this point on. Thanks in advance.