Bad first time sex - is relationship doomed?

[northern_sky]

They are not different.

 

Self-absorbed: Pre-occupied with self, excessively concerned about one's own interests. (Synonyms: self-centered, narcissistic, egocentric, egotistic, SELFISH.)

 

Selfish: Looking after one's own interests, needs and wishes while ignoring those of others. (Synonyms: narcissistic, SELFISH, egotistic, self-involved.)

 

I think it's limiting to rely on dictionary definitions, because what really matters is how WE define the words, not how the dictionary does.

 

To me the difference is that self-absorption is about living inside your own head, being obsessed with your anxieties. This often leads to selfish behavior, but the self-absorption is the real problem while the selfishness is just a symptom.

 

This is why I keep saying that OG's main issue is that she doesn't know herself. It seems paradoxical, but she's both hyper aware of herself and out of touch with herself.

 

She's too wrapped up in her own obsessions to interact with the world and then form a identity by observing how she interacts with the world.

[Star Gazer]

I think you're mostly right and you give terrific advice to OG here. But there really are evil narcissistic fckballs in the world.

 

OG is not like that I don't think. She's desperately afraid and empty inside. She's maybe hurting feelings and confusing some guys, but she's really not causing bloody mayhem. She's mostly hurting herself.

 

I think that's worth noting.

 

I never implied that she's evil. But she does fit the definition of both selfish and self-absorbed. She's also the protagonist in her own soap opera. She's reliant on others for validation but incapable of giving it in return.

[hydorclops]

I never implied that she's evil. But she does fit the definition of both selfish and self-absorbed. She's also the protagonist in her own soap opera. She's reliant on others for validation but incapable of giving it in return.

 

I know you didn't imply that she was evil. You wouldn't be trying to help if you thought that.

[hydorclops]

I think it's limiting to rely on dictionary definitions, because what really matters is how WE define the words, not how the dictionary does.

 

To me the difference is that self-absorption is about living inside your own head, being obsessed with your anxieties. This often leads to selfish behavior, but the self-absorption is the real problem while the selfishness is just a symptom.

 

This is why I keep saying that OG's main issue is that she doesn't know herself. It seems paradoxical, but she's both hyper aware of herself and out of touch with herself.

 

She's too wrapped up in her own obsessions to interact with the world and then form a identity by observing how she interacts with the world.

 

Why do you feel free to make this detailed analysis, but you try to bust others for the way they use a single word?

[northern_sky]

Morbid Curiosity

 

now you're using it correctly.

[northern_sky]

Why do you feel free to make this detailed analysis, but you try to bust others for the way they use a single word?

 

I'm not using clinical terminology, claiming to "diagnose" her or have the final word on her character, am I? I'm just speculating.

[anne1707]

I'm not using clinical terminology, claiming to "diagnose" her or have the final word on her character, am I? I'm just speculating.

 

Which basically means that your opinions are worth no more or less than anyone elses here.

[tinktronik]

Does OG even read the responses to her threads? It seems she just posts random things and gives a little follow up and then posts a new thread. OG, are you reading these thread responses? Do you have any input or introspection?

[hydorclops]

I'm not using clinical terminology, claiming to "diagnose" her or have the final word on her character, am I? I'm just speculating.

 

Fair enough. You're also sticking up for your friend, I get that.

[northern_sky]

Which basically means that your opinions are worth no more or less than anyone elses here.

 

Of course. I never claimed they were.

[northern_sky]

Does OG even read the responses to her threads? It seems she just posts random things and gives a little follow up and then posts a new thread. OG, are you reading these thread responses? Do you have any input or introspection?

 

she's said before that she sometimes vacates threads when she's afraid of the responses she'll get, but I have a feeling she'll revisit eventually. we'll see. I hope she reads it, because she got some good advice.

[johan]

..she got some good advice.

 

I agree. Mostly from me. She should at least read my posts.

[Lovelybird]

I think she is having sex with her bf now when you are arguing

[johan]

I think she is having sex with her bf now when you are arguing

 

That's kind of titillating.

[wuggle]

I think she is having sex with her bf now when you are arguing

 

Poor guy, that should keep him busy for a few hours

[zengirl]

If you admit that you can't say she's pathological even by the informal definition (which I agree with), then what point were you getting at in this argument? You've lost me.

 

My argument was whether or not her selfishness could be judged based on what's written---I am certain that it can.

 

I am also certain that people should be free to use the term pathological without being a licensed therapist. And that it's not a 'dirty' word.

 

Other than that, my bigger point, before you responded and got into all THAT, was that what OG does NEXT will illustrate her character and intentions clearly. If it was just "anxiety," and she is not wholly self-absorbed and selfish, surely after getting some perspective, she will approach this man and his sexuality with a broader, more empathetic, more sensitive view in the future. I think that was the point of my initial post that you responded to.

 

All we have is what OG is written here on her relationships. We know nothing or very little of her family background, her behavior outside of relationships, her childhood.

 

She's written some about the other stuff. But I don't actually need to know about anything other than relationships to determine if she's selfish or self-absorbed, particularly when relating to relationships. I know she is. The degree to which she is? I'm not wholly sure. She hasn't had a chance to demonstrate it, lately, as clearly as she has with this guy, who seems rather kind. We shall see. And so shall she.

 

As for the rest of your lengthy post here, I think you're really over-thinking a lot of what's happening here. The word 'pathological' is quite frequently used outside of clinical psychology. And telling people which definitions of words they can and can't use is rarely productive. YMMV, but that's the last I'll say on that.

 

As to knowing somebody -- whether you know people or not, you form opinions. People come here and share stuff. Other people form their opinions. None of us pretend to be licensed therapists (that I've seen). You are certainly free to state your opinion, but why persist in acting like every other opinion (or the use of certain, commonly used words) is offensive and ridiculous. Clearly, many people are seeing something you're not in OG's behavior. These people are not attempting to 'gang up' on her and often disagree on other things, in other threads. They're just saying what they see. Which, as far as I understand, is what we do here.

[zengirl]

I think she is having sex with her bf now when you are arguing

 

I hope so.

[northern_sky]

My argument was whether or not her selfishness could be judged based on what's written---I am certain that it can.

 

 

Judging whether she is selfish or not is different from judging whether her selfishness is so extreme as to be abnormal, or pathological, which is a pretty strong statement. You admitted that you can't make a judgment on the latter, so what exactly is your argument? I never disagreed with the former, or claimed that she wasn't selfish.

 

I am also certain that people should be free to use the term pathological without being a licensed therapist. And that it's not a 'dirty' word.

 

 

I disagree that many people don't use pathological as a dirty word. Whenever I've heard it used by lay people it's always been in a derogatory way. This is why terms like "psychotic" and "sociopathic" slip into everyday insults. People love to brand others' craziness with official terms.

 

Why not say compulsive or unhealthy instead of choosing a loaded word that is likely to be misunderstood and break down civil, meaningful discourse?

[Els]

I really wonder why you guys waste so much time and energy on her when her behaviour has been similar in almost all threads: Start a thread that gets people all hot and bothered and trying to tell her how wrong she is, post updates blithely while ignoring advice, then finally ignore the thread entirely and start a new one about a new situation that came about because she followed none of the advice.

 

Seriously, spend it on people who need it?

[zengirl]

Judging whether she is selfish or not is different from judging whether her selfishness is so extreme as to be abnormal, or pathological, which is a pretty strong statement. You admitted that you can't make a judgment on the latter, so what exactly is your argument? I never disagreed with the former, or claimed that she wasn't selfish.

 

Here's what it likely boils down to:

 

To me (and many others here), saying the words abnormal and pathological is not some vastly extreme statement, like it is to you.

 

And I maintain that the extent of her selfishness is most clearly shown by what she does next.

 

Why not say compulsive or unhealthy instead of choosing a loaded word that is likely to be misunderstood and break down civil, meaningful discourse?

 

Seems to me like the only one who misunderstood it or made it a big deal was you. Did anyone else misunderstand? I don't know, you sure have a lot of rules about words. And they aren't really all that linked to the actual rules about words. I'm all for rules about words if they make sense (like don't call something "green" if you mean "smelly" because nobody's ever going to get that one; let's mind the definitions, especially within reason). But this seems to be some personal rule, specific to you.

 

I really wonder why you guys waste so much time and energy on her when her behaviour has been similar in almost all threads: Start a thread that gets people all hot and bothered and trying to tell her how wrong she is, post updates blithely while ignoring advice, then finally ignore the thread entirely and start a new one about a new situation that came about because she followed none of the advice.

 

Seriously, spend it on people who need it?

 

You know, I'm not sure whether OG can be helped (not certain that she can't be helped either), but I figure that maybe there are lurkers, or other less vocal users, who have some of the same tendencies and experiences who might learn from these threads. The tendencies OG displays are not uncommon in the most unsuccessful (in relationships) of women.

[tinktronik]

I really wonder why you guys waste so much time and energy on her when her behaviour has been similar in almost all threads: Start a thread that gets people all hot and bothered and trying to tell her how wrong she is, post updates blithely while ignoring advice, then finally ignore the thread entirely and start a new one about a new situation that came about because she followed none of the advice.

 

Seriously, spend it on people who need it?

 

I wonder too. What's the point in posting at all? She's taking nothing from the threads, it seems.

[xpaperxcutx]

I really wonder why you guys waste so much time and energy on her when her behaviour has been similar in almost all threads: Start a thread that gets people all hot and bothered and trying to tell her how wrong she is, post updates blithely while ignoring advice, then finally ignore the thread entirely and start a new one about a new situation that came about because she followed none of the advice.

 

Seriously, spend it on people who need it?

 

Ditto. I have seen her threads run up to 20-30 pages, and all they consisted of where other posters arguing. Constructive advice can only occur if OG is willing to come back to her threads and postively take in what's said. If she just starts her threads and disappear, there really isn't a point.

[Mme. Chaucer]

I'm not using clinical terminology, claiming to "diagnose" her or have the final word on her character, am I? I'm just speculating.

 

It won't take much effort to find threads where you happily DO use clinical terminology to "diagnose" all kinds of other folks; your "Asperger" label for J comes to mind, as does a whole thread devoted to which celebrities demonstrated Borderline Personality Disorder, back in your stint as Shadowplay. There are plenty more. Remember?

[Els]

There she goes: http://www.loveshack.org/forums/t262532/

 

I agree that there are other posters lurking who might be helped. The thing is: Why do HER threads always get so many and prompt responses, when the OP isn't benefiting from them... when there are countless of (I believe) genuine, hurting, sad people here whose threads barely garner any help/notice? What is it about her that makes people want to post? Is it just a controversial thread like the gender wars one? Or is it like watching a grisly movie - you know how it's gonna end, but you just can't stop being mesmerized?

[Mme. Chaucer]

There she goes: http://www.loveshack.org/forums/t262532/

 

I agree that there are other posters lurking who might be helped. The thing is: Why do HER threads always get so many and prompt responses, when the OP isn't benefiting from them... when there are countless of (I believe) genuine, hurting, sad people here whose threads barely garner any help/notice? What is it about her that makes people want to post? Is it just a controversial thread like the gender wars one? Or is it like watching a grisly movie - you know how it's gonna end, but you just can't stop being mesmerized?

 

Because her posts are intended and created SOLEY for that very response?

 

I've been drawn in many a time ...