Just me here-wow I am sorry for the magnitude of what you are going through. I have 2 dogs that I love dearly, the youngest a rescue that also cant hold it. I do understand better your trust issues. I have had to replace carpets because my teens would forget to let them out when I worked. I have 2 rooms of carpet that need replaced but cant afford. Now its just me and the dogs, so it happens much less often. I can see how that can be a real trust issue.
-
We are a multilingual website again. Read the notice about this.
-
Understand AI use at MyPTSD: all AI use is explained in our AI help page. AI use is by choice here. It exists if you want it, but does nothing unless you choose to use it.
Keeping A Distance And Lack Of True Friendships
- Post starter wallflower
- Start date
- Status
In high school, it was very like this. However, I just started university in September, and because I was "in remission" so to speak (I had not been triggered for a few months- Gooooo summer! :roflmao: and I was relaxed and it was a new environment.)
However, it started up again, and I thought all my new friends would leave me, but they didn't- Yay me! I have the same problem everyone else has expressed though- I isolate when I feel bad. I'm very social when I'm not having a bad day or when I don't feel triggered, and my friends know that- they hug me on bad days, talk to me like a mother- which I really appreciate- I can totally see 'em all as kindergarten teachers, the ones who make me feel better by being calm and telling me everything is okay and I'm here.
It's because of my isolation on my bad days that my parents think I have social problems. I swear, next birthday I'm going to invite them all over, haha my parents are going to be like "Ummm... We need a bigger cake.... I guess a quiet dinner with a few friends and with just six chairs in the dining room isn't enough after all." XD
However, it started up again, and I thought all my new friends would leave me, but they didn't- Yay me! I have the same problem everyone else has expressed though- I isolate when I feel bad. I'm very social when I'm not having a bad day or when I don't feel triggered, and my friends know that- they hug me on bad days, talk to me like a mother- which I really appreciate- I can totally see 'em all as kindergarten teachers, the ones who make me feel better by being calm and telling me everything is okay and I'm here.
It's because of my isolation on my bad days that my parents think I have social problems. I swear, next birthday I'm going to invite them all over, haha my parents are going to be like "Ummm... We need a bigger cake.... I guess a quiet dinner with a few friends and with just six chairs in the dining room isn't enough after all." XD
ProudWife99
Gold Member
I've always been the person with a lot of friends, but I only recently realized that I was THEIR friend, but they were not mine. THey stopped asking me how I was or what was going on in my life because I rarely answered. They've been my "best friends" for years, yet know little to nothing about me. I've only recently learned this is not "normal"
I've made some new friends in the area we've moved too and have tried to be more honest with them. I'm getting better about sharing how about my husband's PTSD, but no one (but him) I know knows of mine.
I've made some new friends in the area we've moved too and have tried to be more honest with them. I'm getting better about sharing how about my husband's PTSD, but no one (but him) I know knows of mine.
freakofnurture
Platinum Member
Oh dear... I don't know... Could you define 'True' Friendship? Mutual acceptance and sympathy which lead to emotional bonding?
I am very much a social misfit. I don't care about other people and I don't bond; I'm only scared that they might dislike and therefore kill me. I'm also scared that if I let someone 'close' (because I find them entertaining and/or educational) I won't be able to get rid of them again when I don't want the closeness anymore.
So, I have two people who label me as their 'friend', or even 'best friend', and while I meet some of the behavioral expectations with flying colours, I don't meet the emotional ones at all. I don't miss anything, though. I'm f*cked up and that's about it.
Wallflower, do you miss being more social or having 'true' friendships? Is it something you feel inside yourself? Or would you work on that aspect of your life just to fit in or meet expectations?
I am very much a social misfit. I don't care about other people and I don't bond; I'm only scared that they might dislike and therefore kill me. I'm also scared that if I let someone 'close' (because I find them entertaining and/or educational) I won't be able to get rid of them again when I don't want the closeness anymore.
So, I have two people who label me as their 'friend', or even 'best friend', and while I meet some of the behavioral expectations with flying colours, I don't meet the emotional ones at all. I don't miss anything, though. I'm f*cked up and that's about it.
Wallflower, do you miss being more social or having 'true' friendships? Is it something you feel inside yourself? Or would you work on that aspect of your life just to fit in or meet expectations?
Just me here,
When I was in undergrad the program I was in was a cohort group of 20 students that would get our last 40 credits together by attending night school just one night a week. The first course was organizational groups.
One of the first things that the professor told us about this course was that by the end of the night, each of us will know everyone elses first and last name and one thing about them. Urggg. I have such a hard time remembering names. I knew I could not do this. Others looked as horrified as I felt. The professor said that next week when we met, we would be demonstrating or tested on our ability to do this. Many students shared concerns about this exercise, as most of us think, we just dont have that kind of memory. The professor assured us that "If something is important to you, you will find that you are able to accomplish it, you will find a way, and since the entire class will all get the same grade for the assignment-ie-if everyone could do it-we would all get 100%. If only 85% of students could do it, we would all get an 85%."
The class was set up in a horse shoe style. As others introduced themselves, I found myself with a diagram and jotting down names and facts that others shared about themselves. He lectured and we did many experiential things throughout that first class that was about 4 hours, but I found myself pre-occupied with making some sort of association about classmates names and details. I was sure I could not do this. It was not something you could take home and study, and I feared I would let the group down. The class put much emphasis on group success, which made it less competitive and very supporting.
The next week came and as we began the exercise, we did not get to sit in the seats we had originally taken. We all had to stand in a circle and one person went into the middle, and named the first and last name of each person and one detail about their life. It was a struggle for all and the tension could be felt, but we had 100 % success. I know that each student felt the fear of letting the group down, that they make this their priority-and together-20 people came through for the good of all. I found that quite incredible.
It was a big learning experience for me. I would never believed that I could do this. I learned that if something is important to me, I will remember it. The only drawback of the situation was that it made me aware that when my husband forget important stuff (to me), like a marraige counseling appointment, it was not important to him, or at least he did not take it seriously enough. Like, oh she'' be pissed but she'll get over it. Actions speak louder than words. You can only hear excuses so many times before we quit believing the sincerity of the apology. If 20 strangers can pull together to satisfy the group need, how can 2 people that are a couple, that call themselves partners that are supposedly sharing life goals not be able to follow through with a committment for the good of their family/groupl
We all forget things and dont take things that are important to others seriously when they are not so important to us, but when we continually fail to take things seriously or make them a priority, the message is really-"its not important" to me.
When I was in undergrad the program I was in was a cohort group of 20 students that would get our last 40 credits together by attending night school just one night a week. The first course was organizational groups.
One of the first things that the professor told us about this course was that by the end of the night, each of us will know everyone elses first and last name and one thing about them. Urggg. I have such a hard time remembering names. I knew I could not do this. Others looked as horrified as I felt. The professor said that next week when we met, we would be demonstrating or tested on our ability to do this. Many students shared concerns about this exercise, as most of us think, we just dont have that kind of memory. The professor assured us that "If something is important to you, you will find that you are able to accomplish it, you will find a way, and since the entire class will all get the same grade for the assignment-ie-if everyone could do it-we would all get 100%. If only 85% of students could do it, we would all get an 85%."
The class was set up in a horse shoe style. As others introduced themselves, I found myself with a diagram and jotting down names and facts that others shared about themselves. He lectured and we did many experiential things throughout that first class that was about 4 hours, but I found myself pre-occupied with making some sort of association about classmates names and details. I was sure I could not do this. It was not something you could take home and study, and I feared I would let the group down. The class put much emphasis on group success, which made it less competitive and very supporting.
The next week came and as we began the exercise, we did not get to sit in the seats we had originally taken. We all had to stand in a circle and one person went into the middle, and named the first and last name of each person and one detail about their life. It was a struggle for all and the tension could be felt, but we had 100 % success. I know that each student felt the fear of letting the group down, that they make this their priority-and together-20 people came through for the good of all. I found that quite incredible.
It was a big learning experience for me. I would never believed that I could do this. I learned that if something is important to me, I will remember it. The only drawback of the situation was that it made me aware that when my husband forget important stuff (to me), like a marraige counseling appointment, it was not important to him, or at least he did not take it seriously enough. Like, oh she'' be pissed but she'll get over it. Actions speak louder than words. You can only hear excuses so many times before we quit believing the sincerity of the apology. If 20 strangers can pull together to satisfy the group need, how can 2 people that are a couple, that call themselves partners that are supposedly sharing life goals not be able to follow through with a committment for the good of their family/groupl
We all forget things and dont take things that are important to others seriously when they are not so important to us, but when we continually fail to take things seriously or make them a priority, the message is really-"its not important" to me.
Eleanor
Diamond Member
Aristotle - back in 300 BCE (human nature doesn't appear to change very fast) distinguished between three kinds of friendship. Each is legitimate, but comes with its own limitations and possibilities. None is better or worse than the other. They can overlap, and develop into each other. (There is a point to this, I promise!:))
There is friendship of pleasure - that is, people we are friendly with because we enjoy them - they are funny or nice or warm to us, so we like them and spend time with them. A person can have a lot of these friends. It can be one way, or two way. These come and go, no big deal.
There are friendships of utility (probably the largest set most of us have) - people we are friendly with because they are useful to us - we work with them, or they work at the grocery store, or it is a neighbor who we cooperate with on occasion, or they are fishing buddies with a boat or something like that. Everyone can have a lot of these. This also can be one or two way. They also come and go, no big deal.
The third kind of friendship is friendship of virtue. This is the rarest, and most limited kind of friendship in the sense that it is really not possible to have more than a few of these. This kind of friendship is personal - that is we care about the other person for who they are and who they can be, we sometimes find we care more about them than they do! It is called a friendship of virtue because in its most perfect form (between equals) the aim of the friendship is to create a relationship where the virtues of each friend is nurtured. A virtue is an excellence of character, it means we have access to the full range of possible human responses in that area and so can act in the way that is best for the situation. So in this friendship the friends really know each other and care about each other, to the point where if your friend is going to do something that damages him/her or make them in some way worse than they are - you might be in a position where you have to risk the friend being mad or even cutting off contact with you in order to truly act as their friend (think "intervention" or something like that.) These can be one way, (as in a teacher/student type relationship) but we usually think about these as between equals. Ideally this is the kind of relationship people have with (a few) members of their family. It is heartbreaking when you thought you had a real friend of virtue, and then find out it was only utility/pleasure on their part. :cry: In part it is heartbreaking because these are the ones that can persist through the changes of life.
Were friendships of pleasure and utility what your T had in mind with the "fake" friendships? There is nothing "fake" about them, they are perfectly real and good and important, they are just... what they are. True they are not friendships of virtue, but so what?
The other thing about friendship, observed in many a song, poem and story, is that you can only really be as good a friend to others, as you are to yourself. So if you find your friendships limited in some way, it might be an opportunity to see how your relationship to yourself is limited in that regard.
I don't know if this makes sense to anyone but me, but I tend to think about my capacity for relating to others as "believing other people actually exist." But I can only believe they exist as much as I believe I exist. So if I don't "believe" (acknowledge, deal with etc.) my own anxiety, I will likely not recognize anxiety in others and will be pretty poor at responding to it. If I am bad at taking care of my own physical needs, I won't be very good at taking care of theirs either. Oh, I may THINK I am doing a good job (in either direction) but if I'm bad at one, I'm almost always bad at the other. This may be ideo-syncratic with me.
Dogs are good because they are always dead sure I exist. Which makes it hard to ignore them and me. Cats, not so much.:rolleyes:
There is friendship of pleasure - that is, people we are friendly with because we enjoy them - they are funny or nice or warm to us, so we like them and spend time with them. A person can have a lot of these friends. It can be one way, or two way. These come and go, no big deal.
There are friendships of utility (probably the largest set most of us have) - people we are friendly with because they are useful to us - we work with them, or they work at the grocery store, or it is a neighbor who we cooperate with on occasion, or they are fishing buddies with a boat or something like that. Everyone can have a lot of these. This also can be one or two way. They also come and go, no big deal.
The third kind of friendship is friendship of virtue. This is the rarest, and most limited kind of friendship in the sense that it is really not possible to have more than a few of these. This kind of friendship is personal - that is we care about the other person for who they are and who they can be, we sometimes find we care more about them than they do! It is called a friendship of virtue because in its most perfect form (between equals) the aim of the friendship is to create a relationship where the virtues of each friend is nurtured. A virtue is an excellence of character, it means we have access to the full range of possible human responses in that area and so can act in the way that is best for the situation. So in this friendship the friends really know each other and care about each other, to the point where if your friend is going to do something that damages him/her or make them in some way worse than they are - you might be in a position where you have to risk the friend being mad or even cutting off contact with you in order to truly act as their friend (think "intervention" or something like that.) These can be one way, (as in a teacher/student type relationship) but we usually think about these as between equals. Ideally this is the kind of relationship people have with (a few) members of their family. It is heartbreaking when you thought you had a real friend of virtue, and then find out it was only utility/pleasure on their part. :cry: In part it is heartbreaking because these are the ones that can persist through the changes of life.
Were friendships of pleasure and utility what your T had in mind with the "fake" friendships? There is nothing "fake" about them, they are perfectly real and good and important, they are just... what they are. True they are not friendships of virtue, but so what?
The other thing about friendship, observed in many a song, poem and story, is that you can only really be as good a friend to others, as you are to yourself. So if you find your friendships limited in some way, it might be an opportunity to see how your relationship to yourself is limited in that regard.
I don't know if this makes sense to anyone but me, but I tend to think about my capacity for relating to others as "believing other people actually exist." But I can only believe they exist as much as I believe I exist. So if I don't "believe" (acknowledge, deal with etc.) my own anxiety, I will likely not recognize anxiety in others and will be pretty poor at responding to it. If I am bad at taking care of my own physical needs, I won't be very good at taking care of theirs either. Oh, I may THINK I am doing a good job (in either direction) but if I'm bad at one, I'm almost always bad at the other. This may be ideo-syncratic with me.
Dogs are good because they are always dead sure I exist. Which makes it hard to ignore them and me. Cats, not so much.:rolleyes:
Eleanor
Diamond Member
A thought, and I don't know you so I could be totally and completely off base, just shooting in the dark here:
Maybe you're not so screwed up - maybe you are just somewhere along the Asperger's/Autism spectrum. In which case there is no point in beating yourself up about it. (It's not f****d up, any more than being tone deaf or color blind, it just is what it is.) This doesn't apply to the scared part - that is different and I'm most sorry about that:(. You shouldn't have to live with that kind of fear of other people.
freakofnurture
Platinum Member
My first five paragraphs are not quite on topic. I rant. But after that I'm spot on. Promise.
Please note that by no means do I intend to rant about you by the following paragraphs. I rant about the prof whose responsibility it would have been to not have their students perform deceitful pep exercises.
So: First reason to get up and run? 'If you really want it, then you can do it' - What about couples in love who want it to work out (you wondered about this yourself)? What about people wanting to survive cancer? What about starving children wanting to find food?
While that slogan sounds like good pep talk and I can see how it's easy to fall for it (that group task sounded like a hard exercise, but really, it were just 20 items for your brain and you had one whole week to memorise them plus up to 19 repetitions while each member performed in front of the group; you would have had to have some members with dementia to not get the 100%) - but actually it's blaming the victim and setting you up for either unnecessary self-doubt or an undeserved ride on quite a high horse.
The second reason would have been that I don't do group achievements; never have, never will. Group is the root of most evil because it kills individual identity to replace it by parasitic group identity. Everything that tries to strengthen this parasitic side of group freaks me out and drives me away so fast that I actually travel back in time and will never have gone there in the first place.
Here is where I get back on topic:
I found that most of my 'friendships' broke because the other party tried to make us two into a group, where you have to conform and take in a parasitic identity in order to be welcome.
It's a question of respect. In order to respect and like me, you have to respect and like that which makes me different from you. If you don't, you only want me as your parrot, clone or echo chamber, a mechanism of conservation for the status quo of your behaviours and experiences. And also, you want me to stay the way I am and not grow out of you - or out-grow you.
I also wouldn't call myself a 'friend' of someone if I wouldn't be able to experience all those virtue interests for them. The virtue stuff really spells out a lot of what I called 'respect' some paragraphs ago. And, I mean, how can you call yourself the 'friend' of someone who you 'use' but don't also respect while you do it?
This would have been two reasons for me to get up and leave that class right there and then. Even if my life depended on it.
Please note that by no means do I intend to rant about you by the following paragraphs. I rant about the prof whose responsibility it would have been to not have their students perform deceitful pep exercises.
So: First reason to get up and run? 'If you really want it, then you can do it' - What about couples in love who want it to work out (you wondered about this yourself)? What about people wanting to survive cancer? What about starving children wanting to find food?
While that slogan sounds like good pep talk and I can see how it's easy to fall for it (that group task sounded like a hard exercise, but really, it were just 20 items for your brain and you had one whole week to memorise them plus up to 19 repetitions while each member performed in front of the group; you would have had to have some members with dementia to not get the 100%) - but actually it's blaming the victim and setting you up for either unnecessary self-doubt or an undeserved ride on quite a high horse.
The second reason would have been that I don't do group achievements; never have, never will. Group is the root of most evil because it kills individual identity to replace it by parasitic group identity. Everything that tries to strengthen this parasitic side of group freaks me out and drives me away so fast that I actually travel back in time and will never have gone there in the first place.
Here is where I get back on topic:
I found that most of my 'friendships' broke because the other party tried to make us two into a group, where you have to conform and take in a parasitic identity in order to be welcome.
It's a question of respect. In order to respect and like me, you have to respect and like that which makes me different from you. If you don't, you only want me as your parrot, clone or echo chamber, a mechanism of conservation for the status quo of your behaviours and experiences. And also, you want me to stay the way I am and not grow out of you - or out-grow you.
This is the only one of the three forms that I'd personally call 'friendship'. I need people to have 'virtues' - aka *speaks nasally and with raised eyebrows* be really intelligent, creative, integer and engaged - in order for me to not be bored to tears by them immediately. I know, I sound like an ass -.- But I can't cope with people as it is, and if they bore or irritate me on top of that, I quickly reach a state of mind that is unbearable.
I also wouldn't call myself a 'friend' of someone if I wouldn't be able to experience all those virtue interests for them. The virtue stuff really spells out a lot of what I called 'respect' some paragraphs ago. And, I mean, how can you call yourself the 'friend' of someone who you 'use' but don't also respect while you do it?
Is it along the lines of 'You can't love others if you don't love yourself first'?
Yeah, I get that quite often and I continue to look into it every now and then because of that. But there is the fact that I am very able to pick up on non-verbal emotional cues and that I can fake empathy quite convincingly by reconstructing what others must feel with my rational mind; I'm not sure that there can be an Asperger's diagnosis without impairments in these two areas. Maybe I should see a specialist to answer this question definitively.
freakof nature-I hope I didint offen you by makiing things sound easy-I know it is absolutely not so. My examples were in reference to the original poster (no mention of spouse having ptsd or anything else).
I think that all of our brains are a bit overwhelmed in this day and age. Speaking of (the norm) of there is such, if its impotant-you will remember
I think that all of our brains are a bit overwhelmed in this day and age. Speaking of (the norm) of there is such, if its impotant-you will remember
Eleanor
Diamond Member
@ freakofnature -
Yes, like "you can't love others.." but more specific.
Most people I know are (in so far as they are really thinking about it ) with you in considering only friendship of virtue what they mean by friendship, and for much the same reasons you give. And this makes the whole thing quite confusing in practice. I'd defend the others as real friendships too, albeit more limited kinds. Just because you feel a connection with someone because you share some kind of enjoyment or you are useful to each other doesn't mean that connection isn't real. And it doesn't make that connection or relationship unimportant or worthy of regard. Such casual relationships make social interaction and cooperation in life possible.
As a "low group" person myself I share your suspicion of group formation and identity. I wouldn't go as far as you in rejecting all of it - but I certainly don't 'buy into" group identity much myself. This presents a problem for human beings about how to motivate and manage social cooperation tho. I get my students to remember their names, and don't put all the pressure on them. I encourage them to "cheat", which, paradoxically, helps them to remember! Nothing like having a list to study before you have to come back and take the test.;) Also I set myself up as the worst "name recaller" in the room, and ask people their names a lot for the first couple of weeks. The larger point here, I think is about motivation, and how it is tough to find a "one size fits all" motivator for a group of people - and the peril of group solidarity motivations in general.
I think you jump too fast from "using" to "not respecting". Most casual relationships in our big and rather anonymous society don't offer much opportunity for the kind of personal respect I think you have in mind - we just can't possibly know enough about all the individuals we deal with from day to day. So there is a "generic" respect we offer each other - and conscious and skillful people can tell when they need to go beyond that or it is clearly not what is called for. I find a lot of people are just bad at this. Of course, I never notice when I am:cautious:.:eek:
Re Aspergers/autism: I'm no expert, but I think those two things are compatible with asperger's/autism, although it is rare to find someone who has developed the capacities on their own. The capacity to recognize non-verbal emotional cues is a survival skill for people who grew up in abusive situations - it is something that can be "trained" and a lot of the new stuff they are doing with asperger's kids these days is focused on doing just that. Being able to predict the emotional states of others requires a good theory - I think the impairment is in the automatic responsiveness to it. As I understand it, the "piece" that is missing is the capacity to "resonate automatically" with how the other person is feeling and be strongly motivated by it. I could be wrong about this.
I'm thinking here of someone like Temple Grandin with autism. She has spent a lot of time and energy in trying to be "the anthropologist on mars" and understanding what is going on with other people that they seem to get automatically but she is in the dark about. She has empathy, but at a very "animal" level, and much more easily for animals. One of the striking things about her is that if you watch video of her from 15 or 20 years ago, and see her now, she is much less "wooden" about how she interacts with other people. She has put a lot of effort into "normalizing" her interactions and has made tons of progress. I hope its worth the effort for her - I don't think it would be for everyone.
Yes, like "you can't love others.." but more specific.
Most people I know are (in so far as they are really thinking about it ) with you in considering only friendship of virtue what they mean by friendship, and for much the same reasons you give. And this makes the whole thing quite confusing in practice. I'd defend the others as real friendships too, albeit more limited kinds. Just because you feel a connection with someone because you share some kind of enjoyment or you are useful to each other doesn't mean that connection isn't real. And it doesn't make that connection or relationship unimportant or worthy of regard. Such casual relationships make social interaction and cooperation in life possible.
As a "low group" person myself I share your suspicion of group formation and identity. I wouldn't go as far as you in rejecting all of it - but I certainly don't 'buy into" group identity much myself. This presents a problem for human beings about how to motivate and manage social cooperation tho. I get my students to remember their names, and don't put all the pressure on them. I encourage them to "cheat", which, paradoxically, helps them to remember! Nothing like having a list to study before you have to come back and take the test.;) Also I set myself up as the worst "name recaller" in the room, and ask people their names a lot for the first couple of weeks. The larger point here, I think is about motivation, and how it is tough to find a "one size fits all" motivator for a group of people - and the peril of group solidarity motivations in general.
I think you jump too fast from "using" to "not respecting". Most casual relationships in our big and rather anonymous society don't offer much opportunity for the kind of personal respect I think you have in mind - we just can't possibly know enough about all the individuals we deal with from day to day. So there is a "generic" respect we offer each other - and conscious and skillful people can tell when they need to go beyond that or it is clearly not what is called for. I find a lot of people are just bad at this. Of course, I never notice when I am:cautious:.:eek:
Re Aspergers/autism: I'm no expert, but I think those two things are compatible with asperger's/autism, although it is rare to find someone who has developed the capacities on their own. The capacity to recognize non-verbal emotional cues is a survival skill for people who grew up in abusive situations - it is something that can be "trained" and a lot of the new stuff they are doing with asperger's kids these days is focused on doing just that. Being able to predict the emotional states of others requires a good theory - I think the impairment is in the automatic responsiveness to it. As I understand it, the "piece" that is missing is the capacity to "resonate automatically" with how the other person is feeling and be strongly motivated by it. I could be wrong about this.
I'm thinking here of someone like Temple Grandin with autism. She has spent a lot of time and energy in trying to be "the anthropologist on mars" and understanding what is going on with other people that they seem to get automatically but she is in the dark about. She has empathy, but at a very "animal" level, and much more easily for animals. One of the striking things about her is that if you watch video of her from 15 or 20 years ago, and see her now, she is much less "wooden" about how she interacts with other people. She has put a lot of effort into "normalizing" her interactions and has made tons of progress. I hope its worth the effort for her - I don't think it would be for everyone.
I think one has to go by their own sensitivity, experiences, and what is important to them. In terribly over-simplified laymen's terms, I have only so much energy to go around. And perhaps even more so, I recognize my own vulnerability (or feelings of it), or sensitivity, or perhaps 'limitations', and for my survival I can't (and won't) open up to those who are hurtful, even if they are so due to their own circumstances and don't mean to be or can't help it. To me, for relationships to be of worth there has to be a certain degree of mutual trust and understanding, over and above common respect, and if that is not there or can't be (even due to my own 'fault'), those relationships will be self-limiting. Not 'bad', just not having the same depth or mutual understanding or support. Every relationship is unique, as is every person.
- Status
Similar posts
Donation drives
Trending content
-
-
What Are You Feeling Today? Not Thinking, Rather Feeling! Can You Identify Yours?
- goingonhope
Comments: 34K -
-
-
-
Latest posts
-
-
-
had a dream i was cutting myself again and it felt good
- Latest: Seraphine fatal
