I hope someone can help, first of all I mean this in no negative way to supporters or sufferers. I have read many theads, one said people should not have children if they were mentally ill or had been suicidal. Many supporter threads express much experienced grief, many sufferer threads say they do not feel they give their spouse what they need or deserve.
To be clear, I do understand that everyone has their own situation, experience and opinion. But it finally hit home a way to dscribe what bothers me so.
Before I knew what PTSD was I hid how I felt and what I experienced and did the best I could. I did not commit myself in a marriage for their sake and mine. I did not plan on having children as cancer is extremely present (genetic predisposition) in my family. But reading here, probably arguably the most positive or hopeful arena for ptsd discussion, genuine arguments made that one should limit other's exposure to ptsd (and hence in my case myself, since it presented itself before I was an adult). It says at the top that trauma and depression don't get better in isolation, but other than a T (which I don't have) it sounds unfair then to expose others who are not bound by any ties. Yet conversely, making such choices (or needing to, in good conscience) leaves one with less purpose and less reason to fight for. I was always relationship-oriented; that is people meant more than 'things'.
I have always believed that no one need accept limitations, in that you always hear of the person climbing the mountain without legs. But in the posts I read, it says for example it's better to not have children and such. Oddly enough, I think I could have been a half-decent mother. But- and perhaps this is the key- it sounds like it's recommended to have the least connections possible for the times when one could be (*will be*) unwell. So perhaps not. I have admitedly only one relative I have contact with left, friends I have failed, a friend I have burdened. Strangers or new friends are ok, but after reading the threads I want to limit my exposure to them sooner than later. They don't realize what could be coming, and I'm certainly not revealing anything in advance (for my sake, especially when the connection is superficial or I know may be short lived). But being that I know that once if they're on the receiving end, it seems an unfair and unequal burden on them.
In other words, how responsible am I from shielding people from this? Not just for my sake, but also theirs? I am not a deceitful person, but I am the one with ptsd and no one needs to have that invade their peace. What is the difference between letting the ptsd limit or dictate my choices or not 'pushing through' (not challenging myself), and protecting others who don't need this (cr*ppy stuff) in their lives?
Thanks for reading. I hope others will answer truthfully, even if it's brutal. It can't be white-washed, ptsd is brutal too.
To be clear, I do understand that everyone has their own situation, experience and opinion. But it finally hit home a way to dscribe what bothers me so.
Before I knew what PTSD was I hid how I felt and what I experienced and did the best I could. I did not commit myself in a marriage for their sake and mine. I did not plan on having children as cancer is extremely present (genetic predisposition) in my family. But reading here, probably arguably the most positive or hopeful arena for ptsd discussion, genuine arguments made that one should limit other's exposure to ptsd (and hence in my case myself, since it presented itself before I was an adult). It says at the top that trauma and depression don't get better in isolation, but other than a T (which I don't have) it sounds unfair then to expose others who are not bound by any ties. Yet conversely, making such choices (or needing to, in good conscience) leaves one with less purpose and less reason to fight for. I was always relationship-oriented; that is people meant more than 'things'.
I have always believed that no one need accept limitations, in that you always hear of the person climbing the mountain without legs. But in the posts I read, it says for example it's better to not have children and such. Oddly enough, I think I could have been a half-decent mother. But- and perhaps this is the key- it sounds like it's recommended to have the least connections possible for the times when one could be (*will be*) unwell. So perhaps not. I have admitedly only one relative I have contact with left, friends I have failed, a friend I have burdened. Strangers or new friends are ok, but after reading the threads I want to limit my exposure to them sooner than later. They don't realize what could be coming, and I'm certainly not revealing anything in advance (for my sake, especially when the connection is superficial or I know may be short lived). But being that I know that once if they're on the receiving end, it seems an unfair and unequal burden on them.
In other words, how responsible am I from shielding people from this? Not just for my sake, but also theirs? I am not a deceitful person, but I am the one with ptsd and no one needs to have that invade their peace. What is the difference between letting the ptsd limit or dictate my choices or not 'pushing through' (not challenging myself), and protecting others who don't need this (cr*ppy stuff) in their lives?
Thanks for reading. I hope others will answer truthfully, even if it's brutal. It can't be white-washed, ptsd is brutal too.