DavanKael -> RE: Do you have experiences with an abused sub? (1/29/2009 7:33:51 AM)
|
I was 10 posts in to this thread before I applied this query to myself. I am going to attribute this, at least in part, to making the decision not to live as a victim. My childhood lacked picket fences (Though wasn't horrible in the grand scheme of The Universe). There are some assets and liabilities that go along with that. Too often, I think, when processing abuse, people only look at the damage that it does. I am not, in any way minimizing that facet but to focus only on that piece ignores what good one may take out of a bad and leans them further into a victim mentality potentially. As an example of the negative/positive duality: Yelling, screaming, and contention. A potential negative is that, to this day, if a female is behaving like this toward me, I want to hurt her, badly. I don't but, there is the impulse that I don't think someone without those experiences would necessarily have, certainly not as strongly or viscerally. On the other hand, because of exposure to that sort of environment, I tend to be take-charge, level-headed, and calm in trauma situations. Does physical abuse in childhood make one more apt to crave more harsh forms of physical interaction as an adult? Only makes sense. Is that bad? Not necessarily. I believe that owning one's tastes for more harsh physicality can allow those acts to be uplifting and transmute negative to positive. It is a particular form of sacredness, when one has been hurt at a formative age by someone one trusts, for that person to come to a point with a person later in their life, where they can, in love and acceptance ask to be hurt in a way that is cathartic, pleasurable, ecstatic. We can not always choose those things that happen to us but I believe we can choose how we relate to them. :> Davan P.S.--As I'm in the field, I can't resist chiming in on the Freud/Jung thing. Freud had some wacky ideas sometimes but the absolute truism, imo, of the eros and thanatos (life/death) urges that underly his theories is pure genius. As for Jung, a brilliant theorist too, Freud's fallen deciple. A genius in his own right, but each man did a fair bit of needling the other with his theories about various things. Father/son battle, lovers' quarrel; one can guess at the dynaimcs at length but one thing I can say for certain is that the two didn't interrelate merely as colleagues and, understanding their work together, it's all over their theory.
|
|
|
|