|
Post by blacksnow2 on Jul 22, 2021 21:26:09 GMT
Not merely capable, but pretty much guilty of it. It's unavoidable. Deep insecurity breeds abuse. I think your response is a red herring because I was specifically addressing dullboat and their obvious hatred for avoidants. That doesn't mean I was saying AP's are innocent.
|
|
|
Post by dullboat123 on Jul 22, 2021 22:28:05 GMT
I truly think you need help.
You truly need to understand the devastation brought on by avoidants. If its that minor, this forum wouldn't exist. Jeb Kinnison would be doing something else.
|
|
|
Post by tnr9 on Jul 23, 2021 1:43:54 GMT
Not merely capable, but pretty much guilty of it. It's unavoidable. Deep insecurity breeds abuse. I think your response is a red herring because I was specifically addressing dullboat and their obvious hatred for avoidants. That doesn't mean I was saying AP's are innocent. I think it is important to state it as all insecurely attached individuals. I don’t think of it as innocent/guilty….nor do I see my comments as distracting but more clarifying for those who are lurking on this site. Leaving out anxiously attached individuals leads people to believe that only those with avoidant attachment are capable of hurting someone when anyone who is insecure is capable of hurt….though I think most of the time, it isn’t with a malicious intent.
|
|
|
Post by anapol on Jul 23, 2021 5:00:45 GMT
I truly think you need help.
You truly need to understand the devastation brought on by avoidants. If its that minor, this forum wouldn't exist. Jeb Kinnison would be doing something else. How about the suffocation brought on by AP's? If you dislike avoidants so much, steer clear of them.
|
|
|
Post by blacksnow2 on Jul 24, 2021 12:43:51 GMT
Not merely capable, but pretty much guilty of it. It's unavoidable. Deep insecurity breeds abuse. I think your response is a red herring because I was specifically addressing dullboat and their obvious hatred for avoidants. That doesn't mean I was saying AP's are innocent. I think it is important to state it as all insecurely attached individuals. I don’t think of it as innocent/guilty….nor do I see my comments as distracting but more clarifying for those who are lurking on this site. Leaving out anxiously attached individuals leads people to believe that only those with avoidant attachment are capable of hurting someone when anyone who is insecure is capable of hurt….though I think most of the time, it isn’t with a malicious intent. Sorry no, it's distracting because you're not genuinely trying to move the discussion by merely adding on to it, but you're rather dismissing what is being said (then later on saying we are actually in agreement) to make a point that does not invalidate much of anything here.
|
|
|
Post by krolle on Jul 24, 2021 17:02:21 GMT
I'd like to pull up something I raised before which in my opinion is relevant to the current conversation. And that is the nature if what "is" abuse.
As I said previously I really dislike the term. It's so nebulous and open to interpretation. The Irony of the word abuse is that it's a word which is easily abused. Because it has definitions which are quiet open to interpretation. And the societal consequences/stigma of abuse are serious, both for the accused and abused.
I struggle with it because I am a pragmatist at heart. So I very rarely like to use the word in reference to relationships. The same goes for the word 'blame'.
It's also one of the many reasons I'm not a lawyer lol
Anytime those 2 concepts are discussed it just always seems to result in circular ethical discussions of whose opinion is 'right'. with no real way to clarify a result.
I would like to ask for some help with defining a concept mentioned earlier in the thread though. Perhaps one more easily defined than abuse. There are some sharp minds and a diverse variety of opinions on here, which I like.
What does being "emotionally available" actually mean? emotion in general is a blind spot of mine. I want to invite personal opinions. Not Google definitions.
|
|
|
Post by alexandra on Jul 24, 2021 18:04:19 GMT
krolle Being emotionally available is probably best described through defining having a secure attachment style. That's generally: comfortable being both independent or interdependent, having a healthy sense of self versus sense of others which comes with accompanying appropriate boundaries (which involves developed object permanence), strong connection to self and self's needs and ability to know how to meet those needs, default state of trusting self and trusting others (at least until others have proven they shouldn't be trusted, then not trusting them and distancing but not taking any of it personally), being able to process emotions and stress in a healthy way, and low attachment anxiety (ie fear of abandonment) plus low attachment avoidance (ie fear of engulfment). Someone secure may swing in and out of emotional availability in more extreme externally brought on circumstances, such as a major loss (breakup or death) or perhaps stress overwhelm (illness or illness caretaking come to mind). But since the baseline state is availability, once the emotions associated with the external issues are processed over time, the natural availability will rebound. Usually because there's a strong connection to self, a mature secure person will know when they're unavailable and will communicate it and not get involved in connections or arrangements they can't properly show up for.
|
|
|
Post by krolle on Jul 24, 2021 23:09:20 GMT
Very eloquently explained Alexandra. I will need to digest much of what you said. They are difficult concepts. I hope useful to other insecure people on this thread.
Initial feelings are that by your definition I am basically the polar opposite of emotionally available in my romantic relationships.
Surprisingly I feel quiet emotionally available in my friendships. Whether to a male or female.
How would describe your own ability to be available to your boyfriend. And he to you in your current state of understanding/ experience?
And would you say that AP's are more likely to be genuinely emotionally available than FA/DA? Or as black snow theorized earlier, agree that their emotional availability is a type of pseudo availability really masking avoidance.
Generalizations I know... bear with me.
|
|
|
Post by annieb on Jul 24, 2021 23:32:10 GMT
For a long time I couldn’t wrap my head around my own emotional unavailability as I was convinced I was rather available. Unfortunately In my case only my “available persona” was available and not really me, as I was operating Insecurely. I did not believe I deserved and wouldn’t ever be deserving of emotional availability and connection. Healing for me actually spun me the complete opposite direction of what I used to consider emotional availability.
If I had to define the feeling I had when I was in that state (emotionally unavailable), I was disassociated, people pleasing and extremely insecure. I was not “in touch” with my feelings for the lack of a better word. It was hard for me to voice disappointment in anybody else, but myself. I internalized anything happening around me and assigned negative meaning to others actions and I was extremely self centered while pretending (and often acting in line) to be the exact opposite. I was in a state of constant self avoidance and distraction.
I personally think AP, DA, FA (or disorganized attachment in other literature) are all the same “self avoidance” with different coping strategies, they are all insecure attachers and are all emotionally unavailable. An AP resembles an emotionally available person on surface and that’s about it, their coping strategies are equally damaging to their partners. All these are codependent insecure behaviors and the only way to heal them is to work on our self esteem.
Even after working on self esteem we are prone to fall back into the old patterns, and under difficult circumstances may never reach security and may be triggered into insecurity by relationships (the source of our initial insecure attachment).
|
|
|
Post by alexandra on Jul 25, 2021 0:18:47 GMT
And would you say that AP's are more likely to be genuinely emotionally available than FA/DA? Absolutely not! But I'll get to the rest in more detail when I have a chance.
|
|
|
Post by tnr9 on Jul 25, 2021 3:08:36 GMT
I think it is important to state it as all insecurely attached individuals. I don’t think of it as innocent/guilty….nor do I see my comments as distracting but more clarifying for those who are lurking on this site. Leaving out anxiously attached individuals leads people to believe that only those with avoidant attachment are capable of hurting someone when anyone who is insecure is capable of hurt….though I think most of the time, it isn’t with a malicious intent. Sorry no, it's distracting because you're not genuinely trying to move the discussion by merely adding on to it, but you're rather dismissing what is being said (then later on saying we are actually in agreement) to make a point that does not invalidate much of anything here. I guess we will agree to disagree.
|
|
|
Post by tnr9 on Jul 25, 2021 3:13:05 GMT
For a long time I couldn’t wrap my head around my own emotional unavailability as I was convinced I was rather available. Unfortunately In my case only my “available persona” was available and not really me, as I was operating Insecurely. I did not believe I deserved and wouldn’t ever be deserving of emotional availability and connection. Healing for me actually spun me the complete opposite direction of what I used to consider emotional availability. If I had to define the feeling I had when I was in that state (emotionally unavailable), I was disassociated, people pleasing and extremely insecure. I was not “in touch” with my feelings for the lack of a better word. It was hard for me to voice disappointment in anybody else, but myself. I internalized anything happening around me and assigned negative meaning to others actions and I was extremely self centered while pretending (and often acting in line) to be the exact opposite. I was in a state of constant self avoidance and distraction. I personally think AP, DA, FA (or disorganized attachment in other literature) are all the same “self avoidance” with different coping strategies, they are all insecure attachers and are all emotionally unavailable. An AP resembles an emotionally available person on surface and that’s about it, their coping strategies are equally damaging to their partners. All these are codependent insecure behaviors and the only way to heal them is to work on our self esteem. Even after working on self esteem we are prone to fall back into the old patterns, and under difficult circumstances may never reach security and may be triggered into insecurity by relationships (the source of our initial insecure attachment). It is an interesting point you raise about self avoidance. I don’t actually consider those with DA to be self avoidant….but perhaps I am not understanding your definition of self avoidance.
|
|
|
Post by tnr9 on Jul 25, 2021 3:14:55 GMT
I'd like to pull up something I raised before which in my opinion is relevant to the current conversation. And that is the nature if what "is" abuse. As I said previously I really dislike the term. It's so nebulous and open to interpretation. The Irony of the word abuse is that it's a word which is easily abused. Because it has definitions which are quiet open to interpretation. And the societal consequences/stigma of abuse are serious, both for the accused and abused. I struggle with it because I am a pragmatist at heart. So I very rarely like to use the word in reference to relationships. The same goes for the word 'blame'. It's also one of the many reasons I'm not a lawyer lol Anytime those 2 concepts are discussed it just always seems to result in circular ethical discussions of whose opinion is 'right'. with no real way to clarify a result. I would like to ask for some help with defining a concept mentioned earlier in the thread though. Perhaps one more easily defined than abuse. There are some sharp minds and a diverse variety of opinions on here, which I like. What does being "emotionally available" actually mean? emotion in general is a blind spot of mine. I want to invite personal opinions. Not Google definitions. I think abuse can be very squishy at times…especially when the other person isn’t necessarily aware….I also think it can become too much of a defense against taking personal responsibility for one’s own actions.
|
|
|
Post by krolle on Jul 25, 2021 4:56:26 GMT
For a long time I couldn’t wrap my head around my own emotional unavailability as I was convinced I was rather available. Unfortunately In my case only my “available persona” was available and not really me, as I was operating Insecurely. I did not believe I deserved and wouldn’t ever be deserving of emotional availability and connection. Healing for me actually spun me the complete opposite direction of what I used to consider emotional availability. If I had to define the feeling I had when I was in that state (emotionally unavailable), I was disassociated, people pleasing and extremely insecure. I was not “in touch” with my feelings for the lack of a better word. It was hard for me to voice disappointment in anybody else, but myself. I internalized anything happening around me and assigned negative meaning to others actions and I was extremely self centered while pretending (and often acting in line) to be the exact opposite. I was in a state of constant self avoidance and distraction. I personally think AP, DA, FA (or disorganized attachment in other literature) are all the same “self avoidance” with different coping strategies, they are all insecure attachers and are all emotionally unavailable. An AP resembles an emotionally available person on surface and that’s about it, their coping strategies are equally damaging to their partners. All these are codependent insecure behaviors and the only way to heal them is to work on our self esteem. Even after working on self esteem we are prone to fall back into the old patterns, and under difficult circumstances may never reach security and may be triggered into insecurity by relationships (the source of our initial insecure attachment). Hmm. Very interesting points Annie. Could you elaborate on what you mean by 'available persona'? I'm intrigued by this. And how you knew what is really 'you'.
|
|
|
Post by annieb on Jul 25, 2021 11:52:09 GMT
tnr9 I agree with you, I think a highly functional DA may even appear like they have self love, but I believe all insecure attachers do not have high real self esteem. DA has a false high self esteem and is still avoiding the real self. I should probably call it “the real self avoidance”…
|
|