Re: Psychological Abuse

[katefans@chinet.chi.il.us (Chris n Vickie)]

Vickie here. I'm in a good mood, believe it or not.

First, to answer Ryan McGuire's complaint about this thread still being in 
gaffa. It's true that perhaps e-mail is the best place to conduct some
of this discussion. Moving it to another newsgroup is not really an
option because of Love-Hounds' nature. However, I really don't think 
that, just because this is a music newsgroup, these sorts of threads are
entirely innappropriate. Music is often about emotions, psychology and
pain. Lyrics are important to me and I look for lyrics that are deeper
than your average "ooh baby baby" type. You can learn a lot from lyrics,
you can also learn a lot from discussions (or sometimes flame wars) between
people too. They can all tie in together. A discussion about psychological
abuse or censorship is more relevant to interesting, meaningful music than,
say, auto repair. I'm not saying that these topics *should* be in gaffa,
but they are, and they will stay until the thread (or flame war) dies out.
The trivial and the important can co-exist, it just makes it harder for
the Digest readers to cope. If you're a digest reader, I'm sorry that you
have to put up with this if you're not interested. If you're a news reader,
just hit "n".

Cynthia answered my Psyshological Abuse post very differently than I
expected her to. I understand and even agree with many of her points.

She said:
> Sounds like it was mostly about you having either a psychotic
> spell or a very bad PMS episode.

It was a combination :-), though I don't think I would word the post very
differently if I had it to do over again. Some things are clearer to me
now than they were, so some of it would be changed, but not all.

>> Mythical eh?  "Fable; legend; ficticious story" is what my mini-dictionary
>> says, so I assume you mean the same thing.

> I don't think she ever denied the existence of psychological
> force. 
> I think she meant "mythical" as in .. using it to excuse
> everytime one does not have the willpower to say, No, I don't
> want to do things that way, thank you.  Melissa, correct me if
> I'm mistaken here.  That's how it read to me.

I'm sure I'll hear about this from Melissa, before this even appears,
but my answer is that I read "mythical" to mean that she didn't believe
psychological force existed at *all*, a completely different thing
from saying that a victim of such force has the free will to say no.

> still, each person has the ULTIMATE choice of whether to let
> it rule them or not,   to something like rape, where your
> choice is taken away from you by force, implies a "lessening"
> of the severity of rape, and therefore is a sexist notion.
> It AIN't the same thing as physical rape.

It *ain't* the same, but I still don't agree that psychologically forced
rape is any less traumatic or harmful than physically forced rape. That's
why I don't think Larry's post was sexist.

>> Melissa, you don't know anything about the real world.
 
> Vickie, you crossed over into being a dork on that one.  You
> have no idea what Melissa has experienced or not. 

"All I know is what I read in the papers" revisited. It *sounded* to me
as if Melissa hadn't ever been any closer to psychological pain or abuse
than watching _Thirtysomething_. And if she had, then all she came away
with was the feeling of disgust at the victims not being able to control
themselves.

> The psycholological abuses were awful and treacherous, 
> and so _easy_ to succumb to if I'd let myself.
> SOmetimes I did.  But it was entirely my choice, whether I saw
> it that way at the time or not.                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I understand your point, but I ask you, what would your post sound
like if you were writing it then, instead of now? It sounds like
your point-of-view would be quite different. Your opinion and outlook
has changed over the years. You've come to a different understanding
of the world and your philosophy has become more logic-based. Surely
you remember the emotions involved from that time though.


>>> M> that I may feel as a result of the pressure is due to a weakness 
>>> M> in my own character, and not because psychological pressure is so
>>> M> irresistible.
> That was Melissa, the following is Vickie:
>> You say "me" and "my" but you apply this to everybody else. 

> Well, I have, Vickie, and it's pretty nasty, but she's still
> correct.

I would tend to apply the phrase "weakness of character" to the person 
who's doing the psychological abusing. If they can't get what they want
(be it sex or anything else) any other way than through mind games, it
shows them to much more screwed up than the person who's having trouble
resisting those games.

>> To be presumptuous, I tend to think that what you are referring to amounts
>> to turning down/turning away someone like a school date who is pestering a
>> girl to go all the way, or a co-worker who is harrassing a woman to go to
>> bed with him, to use a couple of common examples of psych pressure most
>> women have had to put up with. In cases like that, it's true that very
>> often it's "weakness of character" that results in sex. No, it's not
>> forcible rape, and shouldn't be equated. Even so, psychological scars can
>> result from the guilt and the anguish of such a sexual encounter. 

>> You most certainly _are_ being presumptuous.  Just cause
>> Melissa (or I, for that matter) may not be at the ready to
>> spill the guts to _you_ doesn't mean you can be so fucking
>> cavalier.

There are lots of people in the world, especially in the United States,
who really have no idea that there are worse forms of psychological
abuse than the above examples. I've met plenty of them. Yes, I assumed
wrong in Melissa's case, and no, I don't expect her (or you) to spill guts
telling me horror stories, but the above was a reaction to her response
to Larry, and the "mythical" statement.

> Maybe you should go work at Blockbuster, so you could apply you own
> slightly fascist tendencies where they could do the most "good".

a) Melissa applies her standards/beliefs about psychological force 
   to the entire world. b) Melissa is rude to Larry.

I disagree with "a" and complain about "b" and that makes me a fascist?
I may be wrong, wrong-headed, wrong-hearted, illogical, and even rude
myself, but it hardly makes me a fascist. Besides, I haven't set foot
inside a Blockbuster ever since they refused to carry _The Last Temptation
of Christ_, so I'd hardly want to work there now would I?

> The child being fondeled had NO CHOICE.  Yet later, he or she has choices,
> even damaged as he/she might be, to look within themselves, or if
> need be, elsewhere, for help.

First, it was rightly pointed out to me that using the example of a 
child was unfair. I did it because Melissa did not use any qualifiers
in her statement. Second, I think that people who have been scarred
psychologically as a child have a much harder time of making the choice
to resist psych pressure or force than someone who has been lucky enough
to come from a fairly normal family.

Some people, no matter what their background, don't realize they have
choices. They have to learn the hard way, or not at all. I do understand
the concept of "survival of the fittest/only the strong survive" and "we
make our own choices and we have to live with them" and all of that, but
I personally find it impossible to see the world as always being in
black and white term. There are lots of grey, foggy areas. Those are what
I focus on (and they give me headaches) and, because I bring emotions
into the picture too, I just can't see the world as either/or a lot of
the time. Also, I think not enough attention is focused on the aggressor,
the person who would use psychological pressure/abuse to get what they want. 


Lots of stuff about my experiences deleted.
> Your differentaiation between the two rapes is thin.  Both were
> physical assaults on you.  The second guy just decided to use
> coercion so he could say, Hey, Your Honor, I didn't point a
> gun to her head!

I have to say that I'm suprised here. I honestly thought you'd say
that I had a choice. Thank you, and I mean that sincerely. It took me
years to get to the realization that it wasn't my fault, because I berated
myself for "weakness of character" even though, at the time, I saw no
choices open to me. Of course, I did have a choice to be stranded in
appalling conditions, which to me was no choice. 

> I think you're using a different definition of Psychological
> force than was being discussed in gaffa up to this point.

I'd always thought of it as a psychological rape. Until now, I'd
never thought of it as anything else. That's why I used it as an
example. 

> You know, Vickie, you give off the air of a person who thinks
> that you have the market cornered on "Having Had A Rough Time
> of It".  Well, you don't.  You think you wrote the book on
> psychological pressure/abuse/force/torture/pain, etc.?  You
> sure come off that way.  You sound like a smug little twerp
> who thinks that no one can be "deep" or "emotional" unless
> they've suffered.  And certainly no one could come close to
> you in that department,huh?  Sorry, that's how you come off in
> this post, to me.

I can see how, though I don't feel that way and certainly didn't mean 
to come off that way.

My argument at this point was about Melissa's coldness toward 
Larry's experience. She certainly has a right to whatever opinion
she has, but she could have prefaced it with a little bit of kindness.
It is possible to have compassion, empathy and kindness toward someone
and still disagree passionately with what they're saying.
You disagree with me on a lot of things, but you showed some empathy
toward me and said you were sorry about the experiences I had. I appreciate
that. I don't have the right to tell Melissa how she *should* have acted,
but part of my post was based on how she *did* act.

>> Flames from people who think that I shouldn't have posted this will be
>> noted, and ignored. I seem to be the resident "emotions defender" in this
>> group and I speak out when I feel emotions have been stomped on harshly.
>> In this case, Melissa makes Cynthia look like a Sunday School teacher.

>   SHE DID NOT!  SHE DID NOT! SHE DID NOT! :-)

What? Make you look like a Sunday School teacher? :-)

> Nobody stomped on anybody's emotions here, you can't seem to
> argue an academic point without making an emotional issue out
> of it!

I don't think Emotions and Academics should always be separate. Besides,
my post was two-fold. Melissa's attitude toward psychological force and
her attitude (or seeming lack of compassion) toward another human being's
painful experiences.

> You sound like you're on the verge of a nervous breakdown, though
> I hope you aren't. 

No, I'm fine thank you. 

> You  sound to me like a person that has difficulty with intellectually
> arguing a point that you disagree with, so you resort to these tirades 
> of emotionality, 

I would agree with this. I do always argue from an emotional point of view.
I realize it gets me into trouble, but I think emotions are important.
I spent many years without any at all. I've never been a "logical" person,
but I used to be very cynical. Now I'm the total opposite. Perhaps in the
years to come I'll find a good middle ground. For now though, it's the way
I am and the way I argue. 

> where they are TOTALLY unwarranted.  Geez.

This I wouldn't agree with, but I couldn't argue it without becoming 
emotional :-)

Cynthia, I enjoyed reading your response, you actually put me in a good 
mood (no sarcasm here) and I didn't expect that at all. 

>From another post of yours.

> Ms. Rhodes has a lovely, rich alto voice.  Loved her voice.
> The tunes were well matched to the lyrics, in fact I liked
> some of the music more than the lyrics, though usually I dwell
> on lyrics.  Her lyrics were obviously haeartfelt, but not my
> cup of tea.  I grew quickly weary of what struck me a lyrical
> histrionics.  I felt like I was listening to Joni Mitchell on
> acid at times. 

Have you ever heard Victoria Williams? She was described as "Dolly
Parton on acid" :-) S'about right.

> Oh, Vickie, when I get back from vacation, I was planning on
> joining the ECTO mailing list. 

You are certainly welcome to join. We don't keep anyone out. 

> You said it was so friendly and flame free, I thought I'd better 
> put a stop to that..

It wouldn't work. Honestly, not being flippiant toward you, but there
are literally no flame wars there. You couldn't start one if you tried,
and I'm not being sarcastic. It's just that the atmosphere is very
different. Not boring or complacent. Believe me, many of us disagree 
about a lot of things. But it never erupts into a flame war, no matter
how much discussion goes on.

Thanks again Cynthia, for an interesting, nearly flame-free answer to
my post. At this writing, I haven't seen Melissa's answer yet. But all 
of these responses are going into a file. There are many fascinating
points from all the different views. I'm not a Psychologist, or have
any desire to be, but the subject is interesting to me. A lot can be 
learned from reading many different responses. 

Vickie
katefans@chinet.chi.il.us



ps, sorry about your eyeballs.