/Anita already said that this ardeur didn't even give a shit about physical attraction let alone feelings for one another, Lisandro was forced to break vows to his wife (anyone thinking of Joseph here?) that he previously respected, HOW THE FUCK WAS LOVE INVOLVED?/
LKH is a grown woman. Surely she must know that love doesn’t always come with sex? Especially when sex occurs against your will?
/Anita worries that this will "ruin all the positive work he'd done"/
WHAT “positive work?” You mean groveling to you and apologizing for being right? And you’re saying that he’s now in danger of losing your good graces because he worried that he may have accidentally slept with Jean-Claude? Because, you know, he’s not gay? Shut up, Anita.
/Obsession is not love, Richard; it is a type of posessing. Love is not about owning someone, but about loving them." DOES ANITA GET THE MESSAGE HERE?/
So…why did you stalk Anita and threaten to kill Richard if she didn’t date you, Jean-Claude? That doesn’t sound like love to me either. Yet how sad is it that you’re the one to explain to Anita the difference between obsession and love. Which LKH clearly does not understand, since all of Anita’s relationships consist of obsession and yet we’re supposed to believe that Anita loves her trophy boyfriends.
/when it comes to trauma and abuse, there should not be hierarchies that victims are forced to class themselves on./
I agree. Trauma is not a system in which each level has a “one size fits all” effect. For example, some serial killers who had abusive childhoods also had siblings, who didn’t grow up to kill people. And many criminal psychologists have debated over why that is and if that proves anything about the whole nature vs. nurture argument. But maybe it’s a combination of both. Obviously, the entire family was affected by the abuse; it’s just that the individuals themselves responded differently. I remember a scene from one of Agatha Christie’s books where Miss Marple explained that people react differently to different things, and that what may seem not so bad to one person may seem unbearable to another (this was to explain the motivation of the killer). So, it’s incredibly insulting as well as ignorant to suggest that abuse is some sort of Oppression Olympics where an individual who suffered abuse that was “lesser” than another’s has no right to say anything ever.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2013-04-16 08:52 pm (UTC)LKH is a grown woman. Surely she must know that love doesn’t always come with sex? Especially when sex occurs against your will?
/Anita worries that this will "ruin all the positive work he'd done"/
WHAT “positive work?” You mean groveling to you and apologizing for being right? And you’re saying that he’s now in danger of losing your good graces because he worried that he may have accidentally slept with Jean-Claude? Because, you know, he’s not gay? Shut up, Anita.
/Obsession is not love, Richard; it is a type of posessing. Love is not about owning someone, but about loving them." DOES ANITA GET THE MESSAGE HERE?/
So…why did you stalk Anita and threaten to kill Richard if she didn’t date you, Jean-Claude? That doesn’t sound like love to me either. Yet how sad is it that you’re the one to explain to Anita the difference between obsession and love. Which LKH clearly does not understand, since all of Anita’s relationships consist of obsession and yet we’re supposed to believe that Anita loves her trophy boyfriends.
/when it comes to trauma and abuse, there should not be hierarchies that victims are forced to class themselves on./
I agree. Trauma is not a system in which each level has a “one size fits all” effect. For example, some serial killers who had abusive childhoods also had siblings, who didn’t grow up to kill people. And many criminal psychologists have debated over why that is and if that proves anything about the whole nature vs. nurture argument. But maybe it’s a combination of both. Obviously, the entire family was affected by the abuse; it’s just that the individuals themselves responded differently. I remember a scene from one of Agatha Christie’s books where Miss Marple explained that people react differently to different things, and that what may seem not so bad to one person may seem unbearable to another (this was to explain the motivation of the killer). So, it’s incredibly insulting as well as ignorant to suggest that abuse is some sort of Oppression Olympics where an individual who suffered abuse that was “lesser” than another’s has no right to say anything ever.