I think I'm trying to offer a different view.
That our hurt is irrational and deeply emotional due to the humiliation factor. And that letting "time" heal us is basically saying that we're waiting till we FORGET. Forget their face, their smile, their sex.
I'm suggesting something that sounds childish, yes, but also different, saying that the feeling of hurt should be dealt with "head on" by retaliating and restoring personal power via ACTION against our aggresor.
Not popular? Maybe.
Sounds crazy? Sure.
Might cut a year or two of suffering by half? Probably.
Can you honestly say that making them suffer just a fraction of how much you did wouldn't make you feel better? Give me a break. I'd literally give away a month worth of my income for that. I wouldn't even think about it twice. Just send me a PayPal account and it's done in 20 seconds.
NCEA,
Skip asked you what advice you need and you've replied that you are offering a view. Given that you don't need advice (which everyone should be completely OK with), I'd like to focus on the latter, your views - which are actually not childish or anything - as I would expect you to be well aware of. But, I'll say, let's do justice to those views as well; I don't think we are treating them properly here.
I also thank you for bringing up this topic that goes against the grain and focuses on something other than forgiveness, roots of which go back to the origins of Christianity in some cultures. I think ideas can only be enriching as we get a chance to see where we all stand in life and how this contributes to our healing.
I think I have stated before that I don't believe in forgiveness, and I'm on your side in this feelingwise (though I'm not in practice because I think targeting someone's job because you were cheated on makes you just another aggressor, not a victim - this is exactly what Judith Herman was describing.)
However, I think, for ideas to be enriching (especially for the purposes of this forum), there needs to be dialogue. Or basically, some people just become an audience for an idea that doesn't develop or lead anywhere. Maybe that has uses, too, I don't know. I personally feel, so far, that I get your view and unless you expand on it a bit, there is nothing left for me. I'd like to carry on interaction here but of course, that's completely up to you. You don't have to expand on your view or approach it critically for purposes of healing just because I like your view. Completely understandable for me.
If you'd like to offer your views on your views though, I have the following on my mind (and I'll connect these with the questions others have asked you from opposite/different perspectives and you haven't replied):
So, I don't think your views are crazy. On the contrary, they require the cool head of beautiful Greek Antiquity. As I think you very well know, you are talking about Nemesis, a form of retribution. I personally am tremendously enjoying the fact that she was "the goddess of indignation against, and retribution for, evil deeds and undeserved good fortune. She was a personification of the resentment aroused in men by those who commited crimes with apparent impunity, or who had inordinate good fortune." (Theoi.com)
I am also loving the connection that she was the avenging agent in the story of Nikaia (what a nymph, is she related to your nick?) and Narkissos. I personally love this because modern psychiatry has only recently discovered what Ancient Greeks probably knew all along. The BPP-NPD dance is famous. In one word, I love Antiquity. But it should be treated with respect. Not every act of revenge can be based on Nemesis.
Nemesis: righteous indignation. In Nicomachean Ethics (ETHICS!), Aristotle describes this as a reaction. People who use this feel betrayed because there is this belief that bad things happen to the bad, and good things happen to the good. For Aristotle, nemesis isn't a virtue but it still appears at the bottom of a list of ethical virtues.
Now, Aristotle had to put it there because he is talking about ethics. That's why he has to work within proper definitions of good and bad. Otherwise, this beautiful concept becomes something like "dog eat dog/homo homini lupus" It's not about good/bad, right/wrong, everyone is hurting everyone, let them do what they want basically. That needs no justification and there is nothing to talk about. Some people feel good with this, others don't. What is there offer in this? We know this.
At the moment, this is where I see your "revenge" is. You mentioned protecting boundaries retroactively but haven't replied Mutt's question - which, to me, is the only thing that can define a framework. Here is his question again:
This is your relationship history.
"I guess where we met - in Greece, 3 years ago. I've met her and her friend outside of a vacation house. We spoke the three of us, and as they are French and are very open sexually, we ended up in sort of a 3some. I slept with her friend, but not with her, she watched us and kissed me, but no sex. At the time she was in a relationship that was falling apart. Years later I'll understand what it meant.
"Three years later I'm living in Argentina for a couple of months and post on my FB "who wants to visit me?" . We only wrote each other a few times in these past 3 years but now she wrote that she needs a vacation and "sort of a in a break from the boyfriend" and wanted to come. I said yes.
She came over to visit me and we spent 9 days together and "fell in love". She went back to Europe and started love bombing me, and we went into a long distance relationship."
The question: How do you define boundaries?
My question: You say these women go on about hurting men. How can you justify that when you were her knowing partner in crime? What's your ground for Nemesis?
If you don't have a ground for it, a framework of ethics, how can you say that hurt "should" be dealt with in a particular way? What's your ground for "should"? What is it that you want to convince us, what's your backing for your ideas other than your psychological state, which doesn't imply "should" at a collective level. (If it does, why?)
If you have been simply talking about your frame of mind and your personal desires without any backing,
Awakenedone asked this: "Can your ex be "crazy in love" with someone after 4 days? Or is she just doing something that is crazy that you shouldn't take personally due to the fact of her being crazy?"
(To which you replied, ":)oes it matter?" I hope you can see that it does.)
Unless you explain yourself a bit better, you seem to be offering as a view nothing more than this: Ugly behaviour is OK if (we feel) someone wronged or hurt us, if we have personal reasons for it and justify it by saying that it is relaxing, healing whatever.
This as a view is neither provocative nor very original. At least on this forum because our BPD partners operated exactly along this anyway and we are very familiar with this. For some of us, this is the very reason why we left them.
Can you offer us anything beyond this?
