Expecting Sex (rant)

[Laura 2]

@Meadowsweet - thanks for your explication.

I certainly take your point that in e.g PTSD/trauma from chronic domestic abuse there may be patterns of needs/expectations/behaviours etc that both parties are entangled in.

But PTSD arises from many different types of traumatic events. Which is why I said that 'by their nature traumatic events can happen to anyone.' As indeed they do. This is a forum for people affected by PTSD from all sorts of shocking traumas, yes?

I've been endeavouring to follow this thread according to the your original point of view, with which I am in sympathy, that you're sick of supporters (of PTSD sufferers? or any person with a disability?) who think they are victims because they are not getting enough sex.

It seems to me that the thread has morphed into a protracted and painful session of intra-group castigation and focusing on this business of 'self-responsibility' - which kind of feels to me another, increasingly convoluted, way to beat oneself or others up for having been a target of CSA, rape or domestic violence.

Don't get me wrong - I agree with you already that there may be learned patterns of needs/expectations/behaviours etc. in DV. But that is absolutely no excuse or permit for an abusive individual to take advantage of patterns that could be seen as negative or as leaving oneself open to abuse. That line of reasoning does lead abusers to blame 13yos for enticing 50yo men to rape them (recent case in UK in which the barrister who blamed the 13yo for the rapes and was dismissed the bar) or for muggers to batter old ladies in the street, rob their purses and blame them because 'she was begging for it carrying her bag so carelessly in the street'.

For me, the fact remains that abuse is abuse. And malfeasance is malfeasance. No matter what form it's in or where it comes from or the circumstances in which it's inflicted or perpetrated. There's a lot of talk here about sufferers having to take responsibility for their part in it. I am still looking for the posts here - and debates in society generally - that insist on abusers having to take responsibility for abusing and the injuries their abuse has caused and going through therapy and/or prison to deal with their abusive activities. Many abusive or malfeasant actions/behaviours are just plain unlawful no matter how much or how little self-responsibility the abusee takes or is capable of taking.

I don't really know how to conclude this post but, with absolutely no intention to offend or further inflame, I find myself wanting to shout "For God's sake people, stop beating yourselves up!! Do you not see that this in itself is part of your pattern!! STOPPIT!! Yes, take steps to avoid more abuse in future but mainly just love yourselves in all your imperfections! You did not deserve to be abused, nor to be traumatised in whatever way you were.":hug:

 

[Nicolette]

@Meadowsweet , you asked me a question and I answered it. You don't like my response and that's okay. I feel that no matter how carefully I try to put my point of view across and express myself, for whatever reason, I seem to struggle conveying it to you without evoking a negative response which is not intended. I was not bringing up something from the past - I was giving an example.

This bothers me

I'm not ranting about your input, and if I had the authority that you have, I personally wouldn't use ranting to enforce it.

as I am a member and are posting as one. I never accused you of ranting about my input and what has authority got to do with what is just my opinion?

My lesson here, is to not post in any threads from you as now you throw up the this is a sufferer thread....... I guess you forget I was diagnosed with PTSD too... my predominate role here in on the forum is as a supporter as I cannot be both in terms of diaries etc but I full well have a right to post as a sufferer and in this case, as a sufferer, I have a different opinion on your view of supporters having had to wear both hats.

I will now walk away, apologise for what I have said that is not to your liking. I have learned my lesson being that I cannot participate in a thread created by you for fear of it being misunderstood and then responded to in a manner which is not relative to the context I posted.

The original post on this thread is about a general attitude towards sex.

I am sorry for my misunderstanding but it seems I am not the only one who has not responded to the content in the way/context which you now are.

But I am sick to death of supporters who thing they are victims because they are not getting enough sex.

I've been endeavouring to follow this thread according to the your original point of view, with which I am in sympathy, that you're sick of supporters (of PTSD sufferers? or any person with a disability?) who think they are victims because they are not getting enough sex.

An after thought, from re-reading page 3 of this thread

That's the differentiation i make between victim (ie helpless) and being responsible for helping yourself.

I was trying to say that I don't believe complaining supporters are victims however, if your partner does not want sex you are then somewhat 'helpless' in changing their mind (as only they can do that) so where does that leave you based on the quote above.........................????

 

[anthony]

Men have to have a prior attraction to you, physically and sexually, before they set out to rape you. Otherwise they would find control and power in other ways and see to themselves in regards to sex.

I think what @Philippa was possibly eluding to in relation to it being complex, is that rapists attraction isn't necessarily sexual at all, and whilst it may include that for some, there are rapists who rape any age based on nothing other than minimal risk of being caught and to obtain their feeling of power over another, which is their attraction to raping another, regardless of attractiveness specifically.

Do you mean that victims of events that cause trauma/PTSD have helped create their own suffering?

Yes, victims can and do often have fault in their suffering, depending on the specifics of each event.

If you take every combat veteran who signed up themselves, they actually have a major percentage of ownership for their own suffering now, being they signed on the dotted line to be trained for war, then go and fight in a war. Militaries also have fault, depending on what era you served. They're getting more open and better nowadays, though a combat veteran still put their life in harms way for PTSD, death and so forth. It is their choice.

If you were conscripted, then that is obviously not your doing by choice, thus your ownership is nil in putting yourself in harms way by choice.

Take a motorist speeding... they hit and kill another driver or passenger in a vehicle. By the act of them speeding, they contributed if not completely caused the loss of life. If they get PTSD, they did that to themselves and they have to own that acceptance.

That is different from being a victim in a car accident who was doing nothing wrong and was the one hit by the said motorist. Saying that, IF you get into a motor vehicle of any kind, you actually put yourself at heightened risk for injury, and you own that risk, but you don't own what another does, they own that.

If you're doing nothing wrong, minding your own business, have taken normal measures appropriate for your situation and then get raped, you have no fault. If you work in the sex industry, then you now suddenly have a lot of fault because you're putting yourself in the position to be raped through your job choice. You own that risk of heightening your chances of being raped, but the rapist owns their actions.

Drink spiking is huge nowadays, so if you're a female and basically accept any drink given to you by another, your chances of being drugged increase. You own that you accepted that drink, friend or otherwise, you accepted a drink you didn't watch get made at the bar, or opened yourself from the manufacturer (bottle or can). You don't own what happens after that, but you own the action of accepting that drink when commensense today is to not do so due to the well-known drink spiking problem at parties and clubs.

Victims are not necessarily innocent of all blame in trauma. This is why evaluating risk in trauma of a victim is important, because it can help them shift self blame, or denial, in order to get past a block in their healing process.

 

[Meadowsweet]

@Laura, there was a time when I had to learn to be a victim, and to do that, I did look at my trauma's from that perspective. there's nothing wrong with that. It helped me to get emotional and to find the childs voice, that I never allowed myself. It is ok to say 'it's not fair, this shouldn't have happened to me, there is no excuse, I was a victim'. that was something that I needed to do, because I'd been keeping it in since childhood. But there came a point where, in order to make myself safe, I had to look at the complex issues that are in me, and that fail to keep me safe.

I've been by myself for a very long time, and right now, as part of my recovery, I'm allowing myself to look at the possibility of there being a relationship in the future. That creates anxieties, and my way of dealing with that is to look at trauma from the angle of my own responsibility.

Sometimes I take the self-responsibility idea too far, and it becomes the idea that if I could just do everything right and be perfect, then trauma won't happen. It's unhealthy for me to think like that, so I do appreciate the balance of opinions that are given here.

you asked me a question and I answered it. You don't like my response and that's okay. I feel that no matter how carefully I try to put my point of view across and express myself, for whatever reason, I seem to struggle conveying it to you without evoking a negative response which is not intended.

The response I gave was just a response. It's an explanation of my opinion and I'm quite happy to go on discussing. I can read it and see nothing negative in it whatsoever.

You came on to this thread with a pre-concieved impression of me that I want to be an advocate for sufferers rights. And with that in your mind, you have taken the position of defense for supporters, and your example was of a rant that you explained was to 'show people whose home they were in' (on the supporters section), hence my reference to not being there was a direct reference to the example that you chose to use.

I will now walk away, apologise for what I have said that is not to your liking. I have learned my lesson being that I cannot participate in a thread created by you for fear of it being misunderstood and then responded to in a manner which is not relative to the context I posted.

This is an example of 'victim' behaviour. If you want to leave the thread, no problem. But you saying here that you are 'in fear of being misunderstood.' And blaming your leaving on my response, rather than taking responsibility for how you are feeling.

As a person with PTSD, I have talked quite openly about how my feelings relate to issues in my life. I'm using the discussion for self analysis, because it helps to manage trauma related fears/thoughts etc. PTSD means that people do have issues that we need to take responsibility for and manage. So as a PTSD sufferer yourself, that's the advice I would give in regard to the fears and feelings that you have expressed here.

 

[Fadeaway]

I think it is wise when entering a relationship to know the sexual expectations before hand. Not all men are solely focused on sex. There are men out there who don't do well with sexual relationships too.

That said, I also know the damage that withholding sex can do to someone. I don't want to say too much in case my husband ever does become a supporter here like I keep encouraging him to do, but I feel this needs to be said.

He is the victim of a form of sexual abuse most people don't talk about. Using sex as a weapon and withholding sex and making a person feel bad for wanting sex can definitely do some damage. It has taken a year and half to get him to even express his want or that he even has needs. He told me that to do that in his previous marriage would result in verbal assault, to the point he stopped wanting altogether. It is a lot worse and the damage goes far deeper than I am even mentioning. I would say though without a shadow of a doubt he is the victim of sexual trauma, just not what we normally think of as trauma, and it goes down to his core beliefs about sex and believing that it is not ok to have sexual needs or wants. He has some firmly held beliefs that are not normal or healthy, and he can point to and construe evidence to support his claims (No guy gets sex in a relationship, sex for a woman is a chore, if you want sex you have to do something outrageous like buy a diamond).

 

[Pencil]

rapists attraction isn't necessarily sexual at all,

This thread has gone so far off topic that I don't feel guilty for taking it one step further. I don't agree with the viewpoint that rape is not sexual - and I'm not disagreeing primarily with you @anthony, but with the views expressed by a number of posters about rape not being about sex but about power. That is the standard feminist / gender studies view, and I say it is bollocks. Rapists are TURNED ON by fear, tears, helplessness, blood, death - and so on. Yes, there is an element of power, but the point is not that they want to assert their power, but rather that their psychosexual make-up is so twisted that they are sexually aroused by very weird, sick and twisted things. Inexplicable (to normal people) sexual desire is central to their acts.

Back to the topic: @Meadowsweet I know you want to explore issues around your healing. But, in your op you said you started this thread in response to a poster about his wife's lack of interest in sex. I might be mistaken, but as far as I know the poster 'complained' about his marriage being unconsummated after 15 years of marriage - and that changes the nature of the 'complaint' somewhat. I don't care what the wife suffers from; I think she sounds totally wrapped up in herself and I wonder why she is in that marriage.

 

[anthony]

but rather that their psychosexual make-up is so twisted that they are sexually aroused by very weird, sick and twisted things. Inexplicable (to normal people) sexual desire is central to their acts.

I think you're missing what I said in "attraction isn't necessarily sexual." The reason I'm saying that, is because you said exactly what I agree with.

Sexual attraction (physical sense) isn't the motivator, i.e. "she's so hot I have to rape her." That is not the mentality, hence as discussed in relation to raping the aged and so forth, physical sexual attraction is not the motivator, but sexual power over the person, as stated, weird, sick and twisted things. That is the sexual motivator in rapists, not whether the person is attractive sexually to them when looking at them.

I believe that is what has been referenced and maybe the distinction hasn't been quite well enough stated between sexual attraction to the eye (stimulus) versus sexual attraction to assert power. The victim doesn't have to excite them to the eye, because they will be excited by the act of raping them.

 

[Pencil]

Anthony, I didn't want to quote everyone who made the point that rape is about power primarily, so I took the reference to that point closest to the reply window.

 

[intothelight]

Sex is surely one aspect of that which you have focused from their words, and loss of that is also an emotional disconnection, because sex is not just sex, it is also an emotional connection shared between two lovers.

In the context of a relationship, this is one of the most succinct and honest assessments of the root of the problem I have read. Is it really that one partner is "expecting sex" or is it more that in a loving and connected relationship, sex is a normal expectation as one of the many physical expression of love? Is it our perception that there is something wrong with that "expectation" or is the expectation a perfectly healthy and normal human expression and need?

When discussing an expectation of a sexual relationship, the most integral part of the discussion is the relationship. Where sexual intercourse is the constant, the outcomes from this act engaged between loving, consenting adults, as a payment for services, or as an act of violence are completely unrelated, but unfortunately we try to tie them up with the term "sex". I see this in the various twists and turns in this discussion. Maybe one things inhibiting ourselves from having a healthy and enjoyable sex life is all the emotion and negative perceptions that have been attached to it?

Is "sex" a problem or is it our perception of what it means and how we view it as part of a relationship? Most people know what is wrong, but do we ever really discuss what is right? Personally, I think it is right to want to have a fulfilling sex life with my husband, and a very basic human right.

One thing I did notice when I read a post of someone missing "sex" with their partner, they are also missing the intimacy in a variety of other ways. It is more of a list of things that have been "lost" within the relationship, that they are missing and hurting from. Most of the times a supporter just misses us.

 

[Laura 2]

Sometimes I take the self-responsibility idea too far, and it becomes the idea that if I could just do everything right and be perfect, then trauma won't happen. It's unhealthy for me to think like that, so I do appreciate the balance of opinions that are given here.

Thanks again for your reply. We human beings need to feel in control of our lives, it's normal and healthy.

When a trauma occurs it's beyond our control. So we find all sorts of ways to regain that sense of control. One of them is endlessly 'fixing' oneself to somehow ward off any further uncontrollable trauma. It's encapsulated in the PTSD sx as 'feeling guilty' (though I'm pretty sure the 'experts' don't have much of a clue about why we may feel guilty!)

There's a point though when that 'fixing' impulse (or 'taking responsibility') tips over into pathology. From what I can see, that tipping point is very close to the surface. Sadly, society in general would rather victims/targets/sufferers of trauma would 'shut up, go away and hang your heads in shame and not bother us any more, thank you!'

Astonishingly from some of the replies on this thread, victims/targets/sufferers ALSO seem to feel that we should blame ourselves and take responsibility for the actions of an abusive other or at least somehow incurring them. Without wanting to offend anyone, my obviously irrepressible response to that is, "Well done, guys! Talk about an own goal! You're doing the abusers' work for them and that of society/public services to whom you're such an inconvenience and would rather you quietly bugger off and shut up, like now!"

My position is clear on abuse of any sort:

Abuse is abuse...No matter what form it's in or where it comes from or the circumstances in which it's inflicted or perpetrated. There's a lot of talk here about sufferers having to take responsibility for their part in it. I am still looking for the posts here - and debates in society generally - that insist on abusers having to take responsibility for abusing and the injuries their abuse has caused and going through therapy and/or prison to deal with their abusive activities. Many abusive or malfeasant actions/behaviours are just plain unlawful no matter how much or how little self-responsibility the abusee takes or is capable of taking. ...I agree with you already that there may be learned patterns of needs/expectations/behaviours etc. in DV. But that is absolutely no excuse or permit for an abusive individual to take advantage of patterns that could be seen as negative or as leaving oneself open to abuse.

Yes, victims can and do often have fault in their suffering, depending on the specifics of each event.

@anthony - thank you too for your response which is illuminating and anxiety-provoking.

I just don't know where to begin though. Except that I cannot think that e.g. soldiers are responsible for their wounds because they had the choice to take the Queen's shilling. To me that's another example of where we humans assume far too much control over things over which we actually have very little - because we have a deep need to feel we are in control of something significant in our lives, we'll even take responsibility for the injuries others inflict on us when other avenues of feeling in control fail? I come from a military family, married a military man myself, one of my sons is in uniform etc. have lived the service life and am 100% supportive of our military folk. However, to think that individual service men and women have responsibility and fault over and above that borne by any other weapons of war seems to me to be quite ill-conceived.

...and to all, for me this thread's been a fascinating glimpse into how we all really think and feel about our difficulties. But, with respect and thanks to all, I'm going to bow out now. Not as 'a victim' (as I think one poster accused another when she decided she'd listened and contributed all she could), but because I've been disturbed by the self-flagellation and the castigation of others whom, I certainly feel, we should be supporting as fellow sufferers. Guys, we just don't need this! Similarly, reducing the very real and serious problem of abuse to intellectualising and sophistry is, to my mind, just as unhealthy.

To my mind, for what it's worth, FWIW!, the more effective way to gain or regain a sense of control and responsibility is to oust the internalised guilt/blame/shame and use that energy externally by campaigning for support for sufferers, against lenient sentences for abusers, for better education of PTSD amongst the public and our 'professionals' etc etc .

 

[Meadowsweet]

He is the victim of a form of sexual abuse most people don't talk about. Using sex as a weapon and withholding sex and making a person feel bad for wanting sex can definitely do some damage.

Yes, absolutely, it is part of mental abuse. That for me is a clear distinction.

I might be mistaken, but as far as I know the poster 'complained' about his marriage being unconsummated after 15 years of marriage - and that changes the nature of the 'complaint' somewhat.

The couple had spent 15 years without talking about their feelings. The way I read it, was that having got married and stayed in what he described as a happy, loving marriage, without sex, he gave her the impression that he was happy with that for 15 years. to me, that is about a lack of honesty and trust in a relationship.

My emotional response to that was, how can a person trust someone that appears to be understanding. Thinking that if a man said that he was happy and enjoyed a relationship with me, that he could just be lying, scares me. I felt like, even men who pretend to be caring and loving, really aren't. I was building some trust in the idea that some men may feel a loving, caring connection to a partner, and not just see a woman as a body that can be used for sex at will, and that thread showed me how I can't trust people who act like they're happy with me. It was an expression of those fears though, not a comment specifically about that thread.

Is it really that one partner is "expecting sex" or is it more that in a loving and connected relationship, sex is a normal expectation as one of the many physical expression of love?

I don't write threads like this to reinforce my view, I write them to challenge it and try to see it a different way.

Where I've got to in the discussion, is that, in a loving and connected relationship, sex doesn't become an expectation because both partners are interested in each others emotional well being. That harsh expectation or demanding of sex, comes from relationships that don't have that love and connection. That's an important distinction for me to make.

Santa-Laurie spoke of sex as being something special. I'm a person that enjoys massage, swimming, candles, nice scents and that sensual and spiritual side of life. I would enjoy for that sensuality to be part of my sexual connection. But, putting aside abuse, I've been in relationships where sex has been instigated by telling me to "come here then" or when going to bed, "leave the light on, I'll be up in a minute", or "put that on, I like you in that", turning me on and wanting me to enjoy the experience with them, isn't shown in that attitude.

In those relationships, there was lots of sex. But despite sex being there, there was no love, care or connection. And that seems to be the key here. I don't think it is about how much or how little sex is in a relationship, it's about the quality of the relationship, the mutual respect, sharing, loving and caring about the pleasure that a partner finds in a relationship. Getting to know each other, by exploring what each other enjoy. If the whole of the relationship is built on those values, then it follows that sexuality within the relationship will be of the same quality.

 

[p-no]

Except that I cannot think that e.g. soldiers are responsible for their wounds because they had the choice to take the Queen's shilling.

to think that individual service men and women have responsibility and fault over and above that borne by any other weapons of war seems to me to be quite ill-conceived.

@Laura 2 : In German language we use the term "to have a share in sth." instead of "being responsible for" or "have fault". This is not hair splitting but really important in my view, to use such a term. Having a share in the case of a soldier signing up with the army and going to war and getting wounded (be it physically and/or PTSD, etc.) is different from having responsibility or fault for getting wounded.

A person who goes to a bar that is situated in a bad neighborhood and gets assaulted is neither responsible for getting assaulted nor at fault. It is always the perpetrator's fault. It is them who take the decision to assault. The victim has no control over the action another decides upon.

Although it is true that you can get assaulted anywhere (there is no 100% safe place), I personally think the risk is higher in some places than in others. If you know the bar you want to go to is in a dangerous neighborhood (you may have read about it in the paper and in the past many may have been assaulted there), it is important to acknowledge that knowledge and not take the risk going there and therefore possibly running a higher risk of getting assaulted. Does this mean that if you still go and are assaulted you're responsible or at fault? In my view, definitely not. Because it is still the perpetrator assaulting you with you having done nothing wrong but going to a bar in a dangerous neighborhood. Does this mean you have a share in the whole story? Yes. You took the decision to go there (instead of staying home, going some place else, etc.) and the assault did happen. Having a share here means that you are a part of the whole story, without judging about fault or responsibility.

It has been very important in my recovery to look at my share in what I have experienced (trauma or not). By determining my share in a story, I can learn to take more control over my actions. Take my last relationship: He had told me his issues. He had told me things that did make my alarms go off (just like that newspaper may have warned a person about a certain dangerous neighborhood and previous assaults/crimes there) -- but I got in to the relationship none the less. That was my share. I had no fault or responsibility for his anger and aggression "attacks", the Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde switches directed towards me as I had done nothing to him. I did have a share in the whole story though because I had not taken my own alarms seriously and acted accordingly. Again, is it my fault I didn't? No. I have a long history of abuse, severe, sexual, physical, emotional, psychological, psychopathic, etc. That abuse made me a person having great difficulty with her own alarm system and actions that are necessary to keep myself safe, self-care. Again though, it was still my share to have gotten into that relationship. That was the moment I generally could have controlled. I could have (whether in reality I was able to at the time or not) made a different choice. Realizing that now, what my share was, helps me see that my alarm systems are VITAL for my well-being (taking newspaper reports about dangerous neighborhoods is very important) and makes me want to work more on "fixing" my alarm systems so that next time the question whether or not I want to be in a relationship with someone arises, I can listen more carefully and closely to possible alarms go off and therefore be able to act appropriately.