Friday, 17 July 2009

Unable to Fall in Love Disorder

Prior to 1974 Homosexuality was classed as a psychiatric disorder.

Gay people are not mad.

I 'suffer' from a condition about which there is much debate. The debate is whether it should be classified as a personality disorder. The reasons against are firstly that is agreed to be incurable and untreatable. Paradoxically, attempts at 'therapy' only heighten it. Secondly, there is the curious fact that there is nothing about it which is illogical or irrational. By its very nature, it consists of the 'sufferer' behaving in a manner which at some level is deemed commendable.

I have disguised the actual name of the condition to stop you googling it. Because if you do you will come across endless discussion forums where women discuss men they have lived with who have had this condition. And you will not see it described from the point of view of someone who lives with the condition.

There are two key points behind the condition. Firstly, we resent any attempts at control. Secondly, we suppress our emotions continually. We consistently approach the world through a polite but assertive facade. The emotions we display are not neccesarily the emotions we feel. We are so good at suppressing our own feelings that we ourselves often do not know what we feel. Sometimes this leads to us being confused with Sociopaths. The key difference is that we DO have moral compasses. And in given situations we will display our emotions. But we will only allow ourselves to display emotions in situations where we are totally in control. And feel ultimately protected from them.

In other words, the way we genuinely behave in social interactions is- usually better than most other people. In a sense. But the point is we display whatever emotions we think fits the occasion. And this makes us at a social level something a Sociopath is not. Because we can understand YOUR feelings. You tell us how YOU feel and we empathise. we KNOW the feeling. It's just we don't allow OURSELVES to acknowledge that feeling when WE feel it. That's what makes us so good in counselling roles, in sales roles, etc. We understand human emotions very well. It's just we turn ours.

At a deep inner level we resent the fact we have emotions and we wish we didn't. But we also want to release all those pent up emotions. So. Very. Very. Much.

But we can't. We daren't.

If you read some of the forums which discuss this condition, you'll sometimes see it said that people suffering this condition cannot form genuine close emotional bonds.
It's not true.

But I guess the best way I can describe it is this.

New Year's Eve, 2006. Subspace, Manchester. 11.50 PM.

Myself and the Baker sitting by a table.

Suddenly he turns to me and says 'Joe, I just want to say this to you. When I think of the best times in my life, so many of those quality moments have been with you. The most intelligent conversations, the most exciting nights, just- I see the world differently because of you. It upsets me so much sometimes when people don't get you. You can come across as so callous sometimes and I wish, I wish sometimes that- I just want to express to people sometimes the person you really are. I tell you Joe, if anyone ever hurt you, I'd take a pasting for you, I would.'

And I- I looked back at him distantly and said 'I know. We should hit the dancefloor, you know'.

There was so much more there in what he said. And he restrained himself, I know that. He hugs me a lot. I know how he feels and he knows how I feel. I don't say it, but he knows.
I think he knows also that the joy I express every time I see 'Crazy baby' isn't just love of 'Crazy baby', though I do love her as if she was my own child. I feel comfortable playing Hide and Seek with 'Crazy baby', I'm comfortable with her playing with my crucifix, comfortable with her bonding with me. I don't fear the emotion. Part of me transfers the expression of my feelings about her parents to the baby.

It really is such a hard condition for people to come to terms with. It's not like Autism where the sufferer is socially awkward. It's the opposite. The 'sufferer' is socially brilliant. A born performer. They just cannot cope with emotional intimacy.

And this is why I so badly want to shout at the discussion forums on the subject. It's the sort of crap Carly comes out with 'Covert abuse', 'Manipulative', 'Witholds information and sex as a control mechanism'.

But- here's the crunch. We are accused of 'always claiming that THEY are misunderstood and always playing the victim.

All of which goes to prove the point. No, you don't understand. And you don't understand WHY we feel like victims. We aren't playing the victim.

The key point is that TO US an attempt to form an emotional bond with us is a hostile act. And if you persist in trying to do so in a manner that we ourselves do not feel one hundred percent in control of, it will severely distress us.

It will feel like being raped.

So yes, it's a problem. The chances are that anyone who really does try to get close to you WILL get hurt.

It's pointless trying to ask us what our feelings are. We never know what they are, only retrospectively. We don't know how we feel about anything, ever. We only understand things in terms of logic. To quote my former boss 'You have an opinion on everything and a belief in nothing'. It's true. I don't believe anything at all. I only have opinions based on empirical data and logical analysis.

By the same token, one forms emotional attachments to things most people wouldn't, as a kind of substitute. I still sleep with a soft toy, for example.

A key problem for us is this. We want to be loved. And we badly want to love. But the concept of the emotional bond formed as a result is something we can't deal with. And probably never could. I've come to terms with that fact personally, though I still had a residual resistance to that fact until recently. Two things helped me come to terms with it. One was the whole horror of the Carly incident, the other was- something else. Which I will come to.

The thing is, we keep going out and we find it so, so, easy to attract people. And over and over again, we keep clutching at straw after straw after straw. Maybe you could love this person. And you let out all that pent up love that you feel inside, you let it out on any target, any target that looks lovingly at you. And when they try to love you back, you strike out at them. Because they tried to get close to you. And you can't make them see, can't make them see the paradox. You want to love, you want to be loved, but you can't deal with an emotional bond.

What really finally helped me come to terms with reality- to stop looking, to accept that its incurable, that I really never will overcome it, was- Bunny.

Maybe I shouldn't say this. But it doesn't matter now. I think, being honest, she is the only person I ever loved properly. I used to think I loved Joanna, but I didn't. Not compared to the way I felt- feel- about Bunny.
Why Bunny?

I don't know. It's not explicable to you, the readers out there. All I can say is that there was a period in my life when I spent the entirity of my day looking forward to getting home from work. Just so I could chat in IM to Bunny.

Don't get me wrong. Bunny had no feelings for me whatsoever. Or not like that, anyway. To be honest, I don't know what she thought. I'm not sure in reality I was ever concerned. I used to kid myself I wanted her to love me back, but I think really I was so glad she didn't. I liked telling her I loved her. I used to go to bed every night and hold one of the pillows, pretending it was her.

And I actually used to feel guilty every time I ACTUALLY got laid. I'd hide it from her.

I really have no idea what Bunny thinks of me. What I do know, is she gave me something no one else has ever given me and no one else ever will. She was there, night in, night out. There for me. And she put up with me, as I am on a close interpersonal level, albeit via IM. She got to see me at close range, one minute full of flowery statements of love, next minute having a sulk and saying 'I'm off to the pub. I might see you when I get back. If I get back'. She put up with my angst, my hypersensitivity, my continual diversion of the conversation, she just- handled it. Implacably.

So much so that there were times when I used to try kid myself that maybe IF she were to love me, maybe it would work.

But it's a good job she didn't- because it wouldn't.

It wouldn't work. It just wouldn't. It's just one of those things, like perpetual motion machines or time travel. The laws of the Universe don't allow it. I'm not capable of forming that bond refered to as a pair bond. Even if I love someone. And they love me.

I met Bunny- just the once. And I guess for me, the crucial thing would be how I felt on meeting her. Would I- feel the love that I felt when I talked to her in IM.

And this is what you need to know. Because it's absolutely crazy.

I can remember sitting in the pub with her opposite Victoria Coach Station. And I couldn't feel it. Anything. There she was in the flesh and I felt- nothing. That's it, you see. It wasn't that I was disappointed in her, I wasn't. She was everything I imagined, she was. It was just there in the flesh, the feelings were- gone. Somewhere else. Inaccessible.

I can actually remember looking at the barmaid (black, athletic looking) and pondering what she;d be like in bed. In retrospect I know why I was doing this. To keep whatever feelings hidden wherever I had hidden them.
I actually felt totally calm all afternoon. Chatting about the paintings. I think at times I shut off from the fact that she actually WAS Bunny. I just went into discussing art mode. I can't remember what we talked about over dinner.

Do you know, I actually said to Bunny (twice, I think) that I loved her. Just to see how it felt saying it in the flesh. And to my horror, I did not feel it. Worse. I was saying it in exactly the same way I'd say any random stuff to any random woman.

But yet-

As soon as I got home, I loved her again. More deeply then before.

So there you are. The only time I have ever really allowed myself to fall in love was in a situation where I only conversed in IM with a woman who did not return my feelings.

I don't think Bunny quite understands why she is so special to me, what it is she has given me and why I am so glad I had her in my life.

Because in a sense, she'll always protect me. I'm protected by remembering, remembering how I felt about her every night. And I will never feel that way again, I don't think.
But I got to feel it once. And that's enough. And it will keep me going now for life.

She is the only woman I have ever REALLY loved and perhaps the only woman I ever REALLY will love, screwed up as that might seem to so many of you. And I can't explain it, not really, can't explain why. But I'm grateful, grateful beyond expression.

Anyway.

I think that explains pretty much everything.

Except one last thing...

Carly only began her stalking campaign after she got it into her nutty head that I was 'involved' with Bunny.

Irony. I had never even mailed Bunny UNTIL Carly started posting personal comments about me on Bunny's blog. It's quite ironic, isn't it. Carly got upset because- in her obsessive, stalkery way, she was reading the sitemeters of every female blogger on my blogroll and decided I visited Bunny's blog too much.

You see, Carly is right to say that any women who ever tried to love me would get hurt. True. They would. Most likely. As I say, try as hard as I like, at a deep level I feel any serious attempt to get emotionally close to me in a manner I don't totally control, is a hostile act, and if pushed the way Carly used to try to do, it does indeed feel like being raped.

Yes, Carly got hurt.

But that doesn't justify Carly's stalking, trolling, e-mail harassment, online libel, spreading of malicious lies involving me founding a cult, harassment of family members, threatening of my flatmate and best mate, deliberately attempting to damage my blog and- Jesus, the list is endless.

And that, I think, just about wraps everything up.

I hope that explains everything now.

9 comments:

Moggs Tigerpaw said...

Crushed. Your post maybe sheds some light on lots of your posts and your ideas and theories and such.

Maybe on whole chunks of your philosophy?

The thing is you expect to apply your philosophy, how you feel the world ought to be, to everyone.

But by your own words, how you experience stuff is not the standard way.

So if you design a philosophy or a way of life that suits you, then I figure it is not so likely to suit most people.

And if it does not suit most people then how likely is it to work?

Like someone who makes chairs who is 6 foot 6 inches tall.

If they make all their chairs to be just right for them then most people would either have to dangle their legs like a kid or get their chairs from someone else...

Thinking of the time you met Bunny and how you felt, here is a thought experiment.

If you connect to a feeling when not with a person, say in im, but have problems with 'net curtains' when you are...

I wonder how you might feel if you ever met her in sl?

akai said...

This is just from the 3 months that I've been learning psychology, but abnormal behaviour doesn't really count as a psychological disorder. But I suppose from different branches of psychology, the 'symptoms' you describe could indicate some kind of disorder. I think maybe it's more a facet of personality than anything else.

I hope this doesn't sound cold, but I've found the whole "Carly disaster" very fascinating to read. It reveals another aspect to where you're coming from.

Crushed said...

Moggs- I would guess it does, yes.

The thing is I do think many people out there DO find a way of living with the outlook. Because that, after all, is what it is.

We are people who see the entirity of human systems/relationships in terms of power/control/status.

Now that isn't really a problem as long as we are able to work in fields where we are able to work largely independently and as long as we avoid relationships where there is factor of control.

In the main, we don't have the so-called 'pair bonding' mechanism, or not the way a lot of people do.

Unfortunately, society as now constructed, with the expectation of a monogamous demand really doesn't work for us. Because what we generally tend to do- if asked to be faithful- is deliberately be unfaithful so as to test the strength of the other party's loyalty to us. If they loved us, they'd always forgive. So therefore, we treat the relationship as a kind of power struggle.

There is a paradox. Ultimately we fantasise abot love, but to us it associates with submission. Hence, I guess, the deep yearning to love a woman who flaunts her promiscuity with other men. To us, there is something rather powerful about that release of love that comes from the total submission of being forced to watch the object of your idolisation reject you sexually and force you to watch.

The reason for that being that in general, we use sex as a power tool. So handing that tool over and allowing someone else to use it over you, is the profoundest gesture of love I can think of. And I guess you'll find that most men who derive satisfaction from being with is described as a 'submissive cuckold' are in fact, people with Passive Aggressive behaviour patterns.

Now I'm not suggesting everyone live like that. Just it happens to be my innermost desire (as yet unfulfilled). But I do live in hope I'll find the right woman- one day. :)

Akai- It's a hard one. No, I don't think it really IS a disorder. My mate thinks it's just an attempt to label something and in the main, I'd agree.

A lot of people refuse to believe you when you describe it, because I'm clearly not an unemotional person. For example, I went to visit my Mum yesterday and found that the dog had tried to eat the tortoise. Poor little tortoise, the dog had actually cracked his shell and he'd had to go to an animal hospital. That really upset me. Things like that do. In some ways, I actually verge on being oversensitive, when it comes to things like that.

And I actually can't cope with being my own at all. I really do need people around me continually. I tend to fret if I haven't got anyone around to interact with.

But yes, I'd put the Carly thing is up there as the single worst experience of my life. It's only recently I've really been able to talk about it. It was a very, very, traumatic experience.

No, it doesn't sound cold at all. Totally the correct approach, I think.

akai said...

A lot of what you're saying sounds really familiar... I get pretty emotional about somethings, but I pretty cold and detached when it comes to things most people feel strongly about... like love and monogamy =/ At the same time I freak out if I have no one to talk to.

I'm pretty sure that anyone who thinks they've been diagnosed with this 'disorder' has been tricked into societal norms that the law should really protect us from being sucked into.

As for talking about trauma, I've read that it's actually good for your health... well that's what my textbook says anyway. It's a mental coping mechanism, so the more clearly you can think about it and articulate it, I guess the closer you get to healing.

Moggs Tigerpaw said...

I can't make the connection into a relationship having to be a power struggle. A relationship should ideally be a partnership and an agreement.

A partnership is a bit like a three legged race, you work together supporting and nurturing each other to succeed, in step. If one tries to get ahead of the other you both trip over, both loose.

You seem to be saying you would misrepresent what you are agreeing to.

Then you seem to say that it is not actually about just power but over monogamy, commitment to one person, maybe not even that but more to do with sexual submission.

You kind of suggest that you could be 'faithful' to a woman who was promiscuous therefore to you sexually powerful.

Why are you trying to have a competition with women if you like the thought of a powerful dominant one, surely you should look for a woman like that and make a relationship with her by that logic?

But what about how you said are attracted to smart (maybe vulnerable seeming) girls in need of protection?

I figure your definitions are skewed and you are not sure what you want. Maybe both at the same time, and impossible brief to fill.

If a woman is really powerful/dominant she can surely do what she pleases, be faithful or not.

I can understand sexual submissiveness but not as a tool to gain power within the rest of the relationship, or even sexually. I figure if one is submissive power is not what you seek.

Even in a Dom/me Sub relationship there should be a strong element of care, protection loyalty and loyalty care and obedience certainly not competition.

Is it just the sexual side of things you truly want to be ruled then maybe what you want is some

sort of Pre-Raphaelite Princess or Lady to be champion to and yet also ruled over by?

Sir Crushed, Knight Errant?

Don't feel you need to answer anything you don't want to.

Crushed said...

Akai- I think a larger number of people relate to it than is admitted it.

I don't believe it is a disorder, because disorder implies exactly that, that it involves disordered logic. It doesn't. I have done a fair bit of analysis of it (amateur psycho-analysis is kind of a hobby of mine). I find the condition interesting because of its implications.

Firstly, let's be clear. People who haven't aren't emotionless. They just develop their emotions differently. And tend to relate better to people of their way of thinking. I first came across an analysis of the personality type in Desmond Morris and identified it as myself. He described the psychology of adults who grow up lacking a strong maternal bond and stated that only two types emerge- one, a perpetual victim, unable to relate to anyone at all, a perpetual victim and the other- Passive Aggressives, though he did not use the term.

In other words, a certain percentage of those who reach adulthood lacking a pair bonding mechanism reach adulthood not only able to cope, but actually in some ways endowed with skills more likely to see them survive and breed in greater numbers than their pair bonding competitors.

Two thousamd years ago, this personality type had no future. Society was built on family units. However, then the Catholic Church loomed into view. Society found a niche for that large section of people who grew up with no desire to pair bond. Of course, they paid a price. They couldn't breed, though those with enough drive could find a way to do so if they rose high- the Passive Aggressives.

I think a lot of Catholic theology reflects the thinking of Passive Aggressives- the way theology sees Love is the way I tend to idealise it. Harmony, Logic, a Universal Calm, Bright, Warmth. It's no coincidence I have always idealised the priesthood.

Its worth noting it was only possible to create this society where P/As could flourish due to human labour of others freeing them to live in a fairly communistic system.

Now, of course P/As actually compete against their pair bonding competitors to breed and I think long term, evolutionary dynamics are in their favour. And that's pretty simple really.

We breed more. Quite a bit more, I think, certainly in the western world.

Therefore, every generation the proportion of people who WOULD be able to cope in adulthood without a pair bonding mechanism increases. And one day it will pass the fifty percent mark and the pair bond will become redundant.

And what ultimately will that mean?

Well, it is generally agreed that human beings are closer emotionally to infant chimps than adult chimps. That humans are in effect infant chimps with vastly increased intelligence.

This is called a neotony.

There is a certain logic to the human race continuining to neotonise. And I think that is essentially what P/As are. Almost a neotonous development which the new logic of a technological society based on logic and not primal violence and uncontrolled emotion actually favours.

The physique of an Eloi, the emotions of an Eloi, the intelligence and logic of a Vulcan.

Which is essentially what we are, I think.

I know that sounds somewhat smug, assuming evolution favours people of my personality type, and sure, I guess it's my equivalent of believing in an afterlife, but I believe it to be so on the basis of empirical data :)

Crushed said...

Moggs- I PERSONALLY think that in sexual terms, I find it more desirable for women to be the sexually dominant sex.

I think there are gender differences, but I think society has become warped by depriviing women of what I believe to be what thy should be.

The insatiable sex...

Sex and love are not always the same thing, of course. I think we try put too many constraints on sex. People are not honest enough about how varied their sexual menu is.

People are so trapped into trying to fulfill a norm.

Anyway, its generally agreed by sexologists that sexually submissive males are usually quite socially assetiveness males in day to day interaction. Sexual submissiveness is something they use to counteract it.

I think I do quite enjoy the pain/subjagation/humiliation elements of it. Also, I think it appeals to me bisexual side. I tend to prefer to define myself as bisexual (since I'm quite camp and girly no one disputes it) but in reality it is only in these sorts of sub/dom scenarios it ever manifests itself. I've never been to bed with a member of the same sex.

As for the knight Errant ideal, yes, I think that is very much how I see perfect love.

Kind of the way Heimdall protected the virtue of Freya :)

Sweet Cheeks said...

Crushed...as always you are paradoxical.

:)

Moggs Tigerpaw said...

Crushed, Re "I know that sounds somewhat smug, assuming evolution favours people of my personality type, and sure, I guess it's my equivalent of believing in an afterlife, but I believe it to be so on the basis of empirical data :)"

Right. It is a belief system and not necessarily logical, possible self deception. I know it sounds "Traditionalist" but it seems to be a child probably prospers more with a strong family background behind them, strong as in stable, emotionally nurturing, and strong as in economically.

I figure What you describe would select against your personality type in large numbers if anything. Such a type can only survive in a sea of those who see things differently. I bet all your mates, your support structure don't think like that.

The thing is tho you describe yourself as one thing I think you are not all that or maybe different from that.

You seem to want the pleasure/pain of selfless devotion to your mental ideal girl. The goddess, the statue, the perfect android/robot girl. Even or maybe especially if she barely notices, just takes it as her due. Maybe better like that? That is not a contest for dominance that is devotion.

I do take your point about discussing things and the "sexual menu" ^_^ brings up quite a mental picture that.

It is maybe more acceptable or expected for girls to be submissive? I do agree that being sexually submissive does not necessarily being socially submissive or a doormat.

There is a counter stream in British myth and society. The noble knight selflessly devoted to the perfect lady. So there is your role model.

Treat us all like we are perfect and maybe it will be self fulfilling...