So... I read here, I don't post like I used to...
One thing I do reply to--often--are posts in usergroups. One group is sextips and one post was about a person who only has sexual desire until they have sex.
For some reason, my brain connected that to Julie, although she didn't stop after sex.
So, what I was thinking is something that would explain her serial cheating with Ron and why she hit on--oh--about every male half of a male-female pair we knew.
So, the idea is this: As a victim of childhood sexual abuse, the victim learns that 1) they can't say "no" without consequences and 2) outside of sex, the rest of their well being depends on making the abuser happy or at least not mad. This means--as a child/teen/partner not in control--this person depends on reading the anger of the abuser/partner and putting up with their sexual needs--whether the victim wants to or not.
If the victim wants sex and sex on their terms, they have to either read the abuser/partner perfectly and WANT what that person does or they have to go elsewhere for it. The nice thing about going elsewhere is--as long as they are not in a relationship--the victim gets to say "no". If the abuser/partner is dangerous or can be made so, the victim has a means of insurance against the cheating-partner getting out of hand.
This is the dynamic in an abusive relationship.
I protect my sexual wants by keeping sex outside my relationship: "If I want sex, I go get it from someone I can influence/control."
I protect my ability to live by keeping my partner happy: "If I want a relationship, I put up with whatever my partner wants and try not to let them get angry."
So... what happened with Julie/Carl?
There's another dynamic. In both of the situations above, the victim is protecting themselves. This depends--in an abusive relationship--of reading the partner's anger as feedback. Sort of warning signs of what not to do. Me? I didn't get angry and what I tried to do was make things better for her.
Which totally stripped away feedback from her decision loop. Sometimes, she pushed trying to get an anger response--it's important to her protection--and other times she interpreted it as me not loving her. Eventually, I think she picked up another factor: "If I want to protect myself in a relationship without a threat to me, I must take control. If I take control, I must control myself and my partner."
So, what do you call controlling your intimate partner?
Abuse, of course. You call it abuse.
And that is how I think "the cycle of abuse" runs generation to generation.
Hope whoever she's banging now gets angry enough to keep her in check or that she's learned something along the way.
*shakes head*
For some reason, my brain connected that to Julie, although she didn't stop after sex.
So, what I was thinking is something that would explain her serial cheating with Ron and why she hit on--oh--about every male half of a male-female pair we knew.
So, the idea is this: As a victim of childhood sexual abuse, the victim learns that 1) they can't say "no" without consequences and 2) outside of sex, the rest of their well being depends on making the abuser happy or at least not mad. This means--as a child/teen/partner not in control--this person depends on reading the anger of the abuser/partner and putting up with their sexual needs--whether the victim wants to or not.
If the victim wants sex and sex on their terms, they have to either read the abuser/partner perfectly and WANT what that person does or they have to go elsewhere for it. The nice thing about going elsewhere is--as long as they are not in a relationship--the victim gets to say "no". If the abuser/partner is dangerous or can be made so, the victim has a means of insurance against the cheating-partner getting out of hand.
This is the dynamic in an abusive relationship.
I protect my sexual wants by keeping sex outside my relationship: "If I want sex, I go get it from someone I can influence/control."
I protect my ability to live by keeping my partner happy: "If I want a relationship, I put up with whatever my partner wants and try not to let them get angry."
So... what happened with Julie/Carl?
There's another dynamic. In both of the situations above, the victim is protecting themselves. This depends--in an abusive relationship--of reading the partner's anger as feedback. Sort of warning signs of what not to do. Me? I didn't get angry and what I tried to do was make things better for her.
Which totally stripped away feedback from her decision loop. Sometimes, she pushed trying to get an anger response--it's important to her protection--and other times she interpreted it as me not loving her. Eventually, I think she picked up another factor: "If I want to protect myself in a relationship without a threat to me, I must take control. If I take control, I must control myself and my partner."
So, what do you call controlling your intimate partner?
Abuse, of course. You call it abuse.
And that is how I think "the cycle of abuse" runs generation to generation.
Hope whoever she's banging now gets angry enough to keep her in check or that she's learned something along the way.
*shakes head*