Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by BlueDreams

  1. This may actually increase the numbers for those seeking late term abortions instead of earlier ones. Beyond the reason of fatal fetal anomalies and life threatening concerns, those most likely to fit the 20-24 week window, often do so usually because of logistical delays such as cost and distance to said services. State by state legislation will lead to more chances for delay in services as women will need to plan to go out of state to receive an abortion. it may hinder some abortions from ever happening but it may also increase rates of later abortions as the ones determined to have one may wait longer to receive one, ironically increasing the type of abortion people generally find the most repugnant. (Random side fact, the gestational age for people who have abortions in the first trimester has been getting younger because of medication abortions increasing the ability to receive care more promptly). With luv, BD
  2. That’s a confusing comparison. I’m talking about the uncommoness of abortion regret, not just abortion. To me you’re comparing a Potential risk (death from covid) to a preliminary event (getting abortion). It makes more sense to compare a preliminary event to event or potential risk with potential risk. Abortion regret as a risk is around 1% after 5 years…2.5% around the first week according to 1 study. That means out of that 302k, only about 2k regret the decision in 3-5 years (numbers staid roughly the same after 3 years). That’s a lot less that 171k. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953619306999?via%3Dihub#tbl1 with luv, BD
  3. Ideally a national policy that would have a basic/reasonable cut off for elective abortions (most put it somewhere around 12-15 weeks), supports clinics for access, and allows for limited abortion access after cut off gestational period. Because that's not likely to happen I'd rather had roe in place than the patch work approach to medical practices accross the nation that will drastically effect women and family health. I'd rather had leaders lead effectively and practice compromise than be puppets to populist demands on either extreme end. No, not exactly. Again, this is based on an assumption, not exactly reality. Just about every stat I've seen points to abortion regret being uncommon. Not that it never happens, it's just not likely. It's still a pragmatic weighing of the other options and potential costs from lack of abortion access. For example, adoption stats usually find that birth mom's will still experience prolonged experiences of grief and satisfaction with the decision is by no means universal/likely larger than with abortion. Physical complications from pregnancy and birth are also far far far higher than from abortion. And if a mother keeps the child there are increased risks to both mother and child well post birth usually tied to poverty risks. But still, I'm not saying every pro-choice advocate is spouting perfectly accurate stats on the risks and benefit of increased abortion access. Nor that policy should be based on meme-able slogans. Similar to calm, i would hope for a system that at least gave people accurate information to decide on policies and balancing competing moral assumptions. With luv, BD
  4. I mean that women can be against something that would negatively effect other women and their families based on cultural knowledge/beliefs. That they can believe something that inevitably may have little effect in them but will have larger consequences for others. for example this article from 1903 points to the vast majority of women being against suffrage (right to vote) for women. Not by a little either. It starts off with similar cultural arguments that then quickly dive into religious, cultural, and presumed assertions on gender and social order that many of us would likely find at the very least strange to connect with the right to vote. Maybe most of these women wouldn’t have voted even if given the chance but it doesn’t mean many others would have an are now restricted in being able to. In other word, women can be against something that restricts women too. They quite often have. and gullibility has nothing to do with it, male or female. Piss poor information and stereotypes about pregnancy and women who choose abortion are super common. I was just looking at a random “poll” that was run by a pro-life group that had some leading questions to help increase support for highly restrictive abortion policies (namely, the heartbeat bills). The question incorporated by leading set up (comparing the heartbeat of a child to the heartbeat of a person on the battlefield) mixed with incorrect information of when a heartbeat starts to emphasize humanness of a 3 week fetus . But what I found interesting was how many of the people polled didn’t know when a heartbeat was first detected in pregnancy. Either they flat out acknowledged they had no clue or they guess and guessed really wrong. Only 40% got it correct. Yet I went through two conservative new/religious articles before I found the og poll they were referencing to beef up a sense of support for heartbeat bills and the likes. this is common. I’ve seen inaccurate assumptions in pro-life arguments a LOT. they’re usually derived or supporting culture assumptions and a general moral distaste of abortion. Almost each time I’ve read a pro-life stance from pro-life sources i find a devaluing via portrayal of women pursuing abortion and/or a degree of misinformation around abortive procedures and/or pregnancy to bolster the humanness of even the least formed fetus. So when I see the argument “more women in AL vote against abortion rights” I think It’s a pretty weak argument on all these lines. with luv, BD
  5. Yeah, this is terrible reasoning, IMHO. These are not equally merited. Single motherhood may have reduced in stigma but stigma is only part of the problem. Being a single mom is HARD by the nature of being a single mom...both financially, emotionally, and in available support. There is a reason poverty rates for single moms is disproportionately high A states can force some women to something by convincing enough women these women don't need it or are tantamount to selfish murderers. Just because many women insist on a specific way of living doesn't mean that it's not forcing other women to live by their cultural/moral assumptions Fed/state laws that ban pregnancy discrimination are often poorly enforced, especially for the type of work many people seeking abortion have (lower pay work that doesn't need a college diploma to have) Maternal leave laws are growing, yes, but not equally and the majority of them do not insist employers pay their workers on leave. Most of the states with trigger laws do not have laws for any form of maternity leave. None of them have laws for paid leave. In other words the places with the most prohibitive abortion laws will be the places with the least amount of support for women post-partum Safe haven laws really misses the point of women's lived reality around pregnancy in general and unplanned pregnancy in difficult circumstances especially. Adoption is not the replacer for abortion. These arguments to me do not have equal merit. It only take a small scratch beneath the surface to see that. With luv, BD
  6. I see it as both. Leaders may be vying for power and shoring up that they remain in power no matter what. But the people voting them in office via primaries are usually doing so in the name of absolutism towards principles that leave them unwilling to see compromise in what they believe in for fear the world will end if it doesn't meet their purist assumptions. Ain't healthy, that. With luv, BD
  7. Yup. My last pregnancy ended in a miscarriage that took a 1/3 of my blood, left me with anemia that was then poorly treated by the ob, and left me half a person for several months due to extremely low energy, constant migraines, and sprinkled with mild PTSD symptoms to boot. The likelihood of me having these complications this early in pregnancy were fairly small from what I could find (not much ftr). But exceptions add up. However one writes it, pregnancy and birth still play russian roulette with a women's mental and physical health, and increase in risk when you have more risk factors. My circumstance was ideal (I'm healthy, still in prime baby making age, well off financially, well prepared to manage my mental health, and with a support system/flexible work situation). This didn't really move the needle for me on being either pro-life or pro-choice. I see both as book ends to a problem that keeps us from focusing our energies on not just abortion but other laws/policies that would likely dramatically reduce both the demand for abortion as well as greater health outcomes for both women and children. I'm still pragmatic and balancing both my belief that all life should be seen as a sacred responsibility with recognizing that I don't feel comfortable forcing someone to remain pregnant at an early stage especially...particularly when as a society we devalue and ignore our societal responsibilities to the poor and marginalized and struggling (those most likely to get an abortion) all the time. With luv, BD
  8. Within the main land US or Canada 😅 hawaii ain’t passing super restrictive abortion laws any time soon. *I’m still not saying this won’t be price restrictive and privilege people wealthy enough to afford time off work, airline tickets, or a long drive. It will be.
  9. Interracial marriage laws were not consistently anti-interracial marriage through our history. Several states had no official law (though likely plenty of cultural stigma) others repealed their laws. By loving v Virginia all but the southern states allowed interracial marriages. Similarly for Ssm, though the history is far shorter, several states Had already passed laws allowing for SSM. So though more tentative, there’s still some (short) historical precedent. what i don’t get is how they can distinguish between this and abortion. Which also has a lengthy legal history that has included some form of legality in the US, including It being generally legal until the mid 1800’s and at least somewhat legal in 17 states in the 1960’s pre roe. https://www.guttmacher.org/gpr/2003/03/lessons-roe-will-past-be-prologue that is the bigger problem IMHO. with luv, BD
  10. I doubt it but maybe? My doubt is based on the fact that this policy hasn’t been tweaked for any other government system that has more restrictions around abortion that don’t match church policies. So I don’t think the US is all that special. Plus this will in the near future become a state issue. Which mean a state or likely region may have super restrictive abortion policies (like TX) but a nearby state doesn’t. So difficult cases may be transferred to another state. Which is still dangerous and a problem if the pregnancy is Life threatening. the problem i see with this is that it will likely make the above statement the deflacto experience within the states as people either move to super restrictive or super open abortion policies. We do not have the political environment right now to make a more common sense middle ground policy similar to most European countries right now. with luv, BD
  11. No. The closest scenario I can think of that i’ve seen is when a person is in an unhealthy/emotionally abusive relationship and the partner gaslights them by being “supportive” of them getting anxiety/depression meds because they’ve convinced them they have a disorder. But they did have symptoms of anxiety or depression and sometimes severe ones….it was just that their partner was the main cause for it. You can’t “fake it till you make it” a mental health illness. You’d have to have at least some of the qualitative symptoms to be diagnosed in the first place. But you can have forms of depression or anxiety that begins to correct once a circumstance is corrected. This doesn’t mean the person doesn’t have anxiety or depression. It just means it’s a symptom to an external cause. (Most common causes I’ve seen are unhealthy relationships, taking on too much work/school/family/etc, an unbalanced value system that’s propping these up). You work on the root the symptoms usually dissipate, though still not all at once. Particularly if the cause is an unhealthy relationship. If it’s gotten severe medication, at least temporarily, May be needed just so they can function enough to correct their life problems. It’s hard to address an unhealthy relationship when you can barely get yourself out of bed. no healthy brain in a person living in a healthy circumstance is going to get tricked into developing a mood disorder. That’s really not how that works. with luv, BD
  12. It's hard to tell, measurements up untill the last couple decades were not systematic. Measures and willingness to talk about it/acknowledge it have also shifted. Mental health problems also vary a lot from community to community and nation to nation. Different eras will lead to an increase in certain mental health issues. My sense is that, yes, it is proliferating and will likely increase more before it shrinks. Why? A plethora of reasons ranging from dietary changes to a western diet, increase destabilization of social/governing infrastructure, increased disparities, increased environmental pollutants/pressures, Cultural pressures in forms of comparison, deeply competitive, and high stress cultural values, etc. Somewhat, yes...but that increased openness has been a solid trend for 2 generational groups at the very least (millenials and genz) and the rate is still drastically increasing....which means there's more going on there than meets the eye That's a weird dichotomy. I don't think it's fully either. Personally living the gospel has given me an added tool set and means for healing. In many ways the healing I've received cemented my conversion and felt more complete in healing me than many of my (albeit brief) therapy experiences. But I've seen people with a poor understanding of the gospel built on the "philosophies of men" per se that this makes things worse to some degree. Most often I jokingly call this "checklist jesus" as in ticking off the right boxes will save. on the other end,. I don't know if this is what someone specifically "needs." Once it was for me (repressed emotions from trauma needing to be expressed). More often it was just a by product of different cognitive/physical weaknesses coming into play. Consecrating these experiences, submitting to what needs to be done to heal, etc have helped them to increase my compassion, understanding, and deepening gospel understanding. But they also weren't inherently ingrained into simply having a crap experience. With luv, BD
  13. I’ve worked with this and intimately am aware of the process that gets people on meds and the experience people have had with symptoms of depression and anxiety in general. I’ve experienced bouts of both at different points, including recently with physical health problems. Mine have never been more than mild and haven’t needed ssri’s to resolve, thank heavens. But they were still there none the less. honestly this question simply doesn’t compute. Self inflicting depression in the way you’re describing doesn’t make sense to me. You can have people who have maladaptive coping tools or values that can fuel depression/anxiety (rigid perfectionism for example) this means if you correct the patterns to some degree the symptoms will often reduce. But this is not the same from what you’re reading. These people really do have depression or anxiety and are susceptible to it. I’ve worked with sooooo many people who have been diagnosed by either me or another professional for depression/anxiety and I’ve never met anyone who was “self-inflicting” the disorder(s…it’s a cluster of potential diagnoses). I’ve met people who were misdiagnosed with it but had something else (usually OCD, bipolar disorder, specific anxieties, grief, trauma/PTSD, or personality disorders). I’ve had people that the depression/anxiety was a symptom of another problem/cause that needed to be addressed or the problem would persist (relational issues, another disorder, chronic health problems, etc). But even if I did hypothetically met someone “self-inflicting” a mood disorder…they likely still have something seriously wrong floating in their background. That’s not exactly healthy human behavior. Positivity doesn’t work. Well not in and of itself. I can see why it has push back, but honestly I’m okay that someone can be that unaffected by mental health issues that they seriously don’t get why this doesn’t work. So Let me explain it in an analogy. Let’s say you want to get from one place to another. By car it’s a 40 minute commute. You make this trip regularly for work, may not be a fan of it, but have a car that you can reliably use to get you there. So even though it’s not perfect, you buckle up, eat your breakfast and do what’s needed. You even make the best of it by listening to things that uplift or grow you. Another person wants to live in a similar type of place that you do. They happen to work within a similar distance from their ideal neighborhood that you work. So you tell them what worked for you. The one big problem is that this person doesn’t own a car and can’t currently afford to. Telling them to wake up early, make the best of the commute via podcasts and music, etc etc…is missing key first steps checking to see if they have a legitimate means to get there. The form of depression/anxiety they have would be similar to just how difficult this commute would be for them. One may have a solid public transit system that only adds a little more time to the commute….which case some of your advice may still apply. Another may only have a bike and need access to ride sharing. Another may only have their feet and the realities of their limitations means changing what is realistic to hope for in a place to live or work. Another may be in the middle of an active war zone and all of this is moot until conflict subsides or they can get out safely. Etc. Basically if you already have the means and environmental structure, the advice given that works for you -, a car owner in an environment that allows for drive - will work. But if you don’t it will either be irrelevant or highlight the deficit they’re currently experiencing. when I’m working with people I can’t simply point to positivity. I have to help them restructure their experiences and world so that positivity can be a realistic thing to reach and access. Your hypothetical only works if everybody really does own cars and reliable infrastructure… or in other words a very similar personal landscape as your own. I can attest that that is not the case. Side note: I don’t make much of a distinction between situational and chronic depression in terms of basic symptoms, just in terms of treatment, duration of therapy, and interventions…depression is depression. Anxiety is anxiety. They’ll still often need help. I’ve only had situational depression/anxiety. It’s never been chronic. It Still sucks and the situations that caused it are similar to the ones that cause more severe and/or long term mood disorders in others. I can’t tell you why I lucked out with just mild symptoms while say my brother has struggled heavily with mood disorders. I don’t know if mental health illness is the exception. Lifetime prevalence rate of any mental health illness is around 46-47%. so just shy of a coin toss on whether or not you at somepoint will struggle with your mental health. It’s neither the exception or the rule, it’s a common experience. with luv, BD
  14. i would say patriarchy and matriarchy can function. But I think the function is still often with some costs for both men and women in each society. Neither is how i picture god fully, so both to me fall short of “perfect righteousness.” I probably lean more to the “more modern teachings in place of the later” category. But I find it interesting that this article starts off with: “the comments on the patriarchal order in marriage represent my personal views.” I also read about half the talk. The funny thing is much of it I agree with or see some value in. And I see it as a little bit of a Time Capsule for where we’ve come from and how that continued to be refined in our current day. The biggest difference I had is in the view of how he described the husband/wife relationship. Where he describes the husband as the leader and the wife as the counselor in the family. I think the biggest flaw church wise was to presume the church hierarchical terminology/relationship into family dynamics. In that orientation there is a leader and that leader listens to/divides the work amongst counselors but ultimately has the directive role in the relationship/keys. This isn’t what happens in families. Once upon a time I think oaks gave a talk differentiating between family priesthood responsibilities and order and hierarchical church oriented priesthood order. This would be an indirect pushback on viewing the role of the father in “presiding” as equivalent to say a bishop presiding. And I think it’s lines like the one quoted from Paul that fueled this line of reasoning…where the parallels in fatherly/partner role were one inevitably unequal. Yes changing the parameters around the traditional picture of “leader” to one less dictatorial to service and love oriented with United decision making helps and is a big step up from authoritarian lord-type husbands. But it’s still not THE model given us in the temple of Adam and Eve where both were half of the pie in creating a family and both had primary responsibilities to this and shared in said responsibilities. Where they became effectively one. There isn’t a leadership calling in the organizational church with that exact dynamic. the temple rituals changed, yes. But they changed in large part by adding words and contexts reflected in the book of Moses especially when describing the relationship of Adam and Eve. This section is probably one of my favorites and before the change was already my guidepost to interpreting both marriage and temple rites. The description is equitable. They are given different names and slightly different responsibilities in them. They both help each other in these responsibilities. They both receive revelation for their family. They work in sync to share these truths with their children to guide them. Adam’s role is one that’s just been fleshed out and focused on in later examples of priesthood over and over and over again. Eve’s, if it had been at one point, got seriously lost along the way. Even this elder recognizes that the picture of women is limited in scripture. But it is there and it can be expanded in understanding. These can direct and I hope one day increase our understanding oF priestesshood and the divine feminine in the future. Those are big ifs. Ones I don’t subscribe to and ones that build on our cultural inferences of power, authority, roles, etc. Again all of these are super understandable and ones I’ve had questions on too because of the cultural derivative. I have a funny story about this. Once we had the missionaries. My favorite seat is what’s often considered “the head” of the table. In said seat I quipped “as head of the household would xyz say the prayer.” One of the elders looked perturbed. I got a good chuckle out of it (on the inside). I’d broken cultural assumptions. Ones I’d seen enacted over and over again but that didn’t really have much of a meaning beyond cultural expectation that dad will say who will say the prayer. It’s not written down anywhere, it’s just assumed that that should happen. Probably because of this church—>family correlation in people’s heads. I can’t give clear answers to these questions. It still comes back to Adam and Eve for me and then to me and my husband’s actually relationship as it is. One where we are united, knit together, and both contribute spiritually to the home. Me in the ways I’m strong in, him in the ways he’s good in. I don’t know how to juxtapose that with some of the language 40 years ago, 100, or 2000 years in the past. It ain’t my job to. For me, this is the ideal relationship. One of equals in strength/capacity, sharing and working in the different responsibilities/calls they have in it. Neither above or better than the other because of said calls. That’s currently good enough for me. with luv bd
  15. Makes more sense. We lived in a suburban city north of Dallas that was likely first primarily baptist but was "diversifying" as the population grew, largely in terms of christian denominations (namely catholics and non denom). When we first moved in, there was a petition going around to allow alcohol sales within city limits, to give an idea of what the local politics looked liked and converged with religion. I think it's continued to change in demos, in terms of both religious affiliation and a little racially. In general, areas that are more urban and diverse seem to have a similar effect with what you describe. The smaller and less diverse the community the more likely you are to find more insular quarks and/or problems. The town I live in now is technically "small" but is also nearer more dense populations than rural outskirts of UT county. With luv, BD
  16. 1.) first word that comes to mind (super broadly) is unrighteous dominion. Generally, it’s a lens of interpreting and interacting with the world that places male experience as the norm, female ones as second-thoughts or special interests or a “woman’s issue” even though women make half/slightly over half of the population. It’s worst manifestations view women and their voices as unneeded, less than, and even threatening. It can include cultural over valuing of “masculine” traits and mannerism. It’s more common manifestations are cultural practices and patterns of relating that can lead to women’s voices and power being excluded or underutilized. I think for many it is just how it is and becomes culturally normative. It’s ingrained into so much of our heritages that it’s hard to completely shake it. It’s inherently hierarchical in that it tiers both gender and quite often glorifies people “on top” and cultural ideals. 2.) yeah. I can’t see how any of the above is of God. I think It’s a bastardization of what was supposed to be. i don’t think the damage is universally felt the same though. Because it’s culturally baked into value systems and interactions, one can have a relatively healthy life in social/structural patriarchy, giving the facade that this is okay. 3.) yes. Unless we’ve become fully zion, we still struggle with the cultural heritage of a fallen world. Which includes a lot of assumptions, biases, accepted power structures, etc that are not actually how God works, but have been derived from varying degrees of social corruption over millennia. We are not the cool that we can just shake it off just by joining ourselves to a faith. I think this is reducing and being replaced, but it’s a process. One we’ll likely be on for a while. On family…it varies. There’s not one single way of running family in the church. People take the basic principles around family in very very different ways. I’ve seen ones that are very stringent in interpreting it as very traditional roles and others not so much….tough equally religious. Structure will differ, cultural assumptions with differ, roles will differ from household to household. with luv, BD
  17. Part of me can kinda get it. 1.) people generally don't enjoy being the recipient of or experiencing anger. It's not a highly valued experience or trait in others. 2.) Spiritual growth and change have reduced the circumstances that get me angry. I assume I'm not that rare in finding that the process of conversion and spiritual refining changes how one responds to things. I can see how someone could put these two together and assume the end goal is to be rid of anger all together. Particularly if they haven't regularly witnessed or personally experienced processing anger in circumstances that are more justified/necessary. I believe most don't have to stare evil circumstances directly in the face very often. I'm glad for them in that. It's just not what I experience in my life. Just this week I've had 2 experiences with others anger that was extremely justified and needed to be heard and understood. With luv, BD
  18. I build this off of how wrath especially is described in the scriptures. God is described as being "slow to anger" multiple times in scripture....but not that God has no anger. When this anger is express via wrath, it is in a form of bring out some form of punishment (justice) against a sinful people who continue to resist repentance and most often would impede the spiritual/physical health of God's people. With luv, BD
  19. I literally had the reverse experience. But I moved from out east where religion was rarely talked about to texas in a town that was strongly conservative Christian. One of the first questions people would ask me when first meet was about my religion. Like all the time. And they cared when it was largely considered the wrong answer. It was some major culture shock. Utah was also a minor culture shock (I was at BYU in 00’s-10’s) but for different reasons. Religion largely came up when the context warranted it…but not much outside of specific religious activities except if I was having some deeper conversations with a good friend. Now, in a utah county town (I’d say medium sized) it doesn’t come up where I wouldn’t expect it to. Outside of my job (it would specifically come up in therapeutic contexts) and church I don’t think I see god talked about excessively. But that’s now several decades from when this is set. side note: I’ll probably not watch it…It’s not my usual type of entertainment. I just thought it was funny that your place of reprieve was the place where I experienced religious overkill. with luv, bd
  20. Yes. Soon after writing the post, I thought of it this way: Anger is the vehicle of justice; Love and compassion is the GPS and steering wheel to guide the vehicle. Having a good balance between the two gives you the capacity to move to a better world. If you have GPS without a vehicle you're not going to move very quickly or it may be impossible to reach a destination in the needed time. If you have a vehicle with out a steering wheel/gps you'll like get lost or crash in your anger. With luv, BD
  21. Just an aside, It's a myth that people with these disorder don't feel or experience anger. They often just have a different/poor way of expressing it. May be better to describe a robot or an amoeba. ...or at least something without enough self-awareness to recognize that they don't like an experience happening to them. With luv, BD
  22. If there was a world where anger was never warranted (as in where there was no evil, things were equitable, and fairness/love reined in divine balance), I think God would prefer us have that world. But since we’re not there, we should feel anger at times. How we act on that anger is a different story. And as described above I don’t believe it’s possible or necessarily healthy to execute all things without acknowledging and understanding our anger. If someone can look at severe injustice and wrongness in the world without anger at least at some point in processing it, I honestly question whether they’ve fully comprehended the depth of a problem. And from what I’ve seen, those who “don’t go there” when faced with something awful also often don’t fully fix or address the issue. Which means that world of divine balance between justice and mercy is still out of reach, and anger is not warranted will continue to not exist. On the last question, to me it’s besides the point. Anger, if it’s happening, likely has a reason for happening…even if what one would want to initially do with that anger is unhealthy. Understanding why it’s happening and healthily addressing it is the goal. Not getting rid of the emotion all together. with luv, BD
  23. I don’t understand the “more holier” aspect. I am well acquainted with anger….it’s been a companion of mine for much of my life. This has not been my experience. When I was a teen I had an anger problem. In rhetospect it came from an understandable place. I had little control of my life, was deeply insecure, and my household was growing more and more contentious. I wasn’t happy. But unfortunately because no one acknowledged or taught me how to handle my anger, it bled out…everywhere. luckily I grew up, found a lot of Jesus, learned to not lash out most of the time, and when I was a missionary God “blessed” me by giving me a companion who reminded me of a the person a large part of my anger was tied to. For several weeks I felt rage that I knew wasn’t fully about her (though she was a bit of a difficult companion…not just for me). I didn’t want to acknowledge why I was feeling this. I didn’t want to acknowledge the feeling. But finally I did. For the first time in my life I told this companion the greatest pains of my early life. And when I did and it wasn’t rejected, dismissed, ignored, or minimized it finally dissipated (like it had been both by me and others). My heart could finally heal from the rage I’d tried much of my time post-conversion to suppress. God didn’t want me to act out in permanent rage, he didn’t want me to suppress the anger, he wanted me to understand what happened to me and why it was wrong. Understanding and experiencing my anger healthily was a part of that. Past this, I still get angry. Though far less from the things that used to hurt. I’ve acknowledged it, honored it, and made necessary boundaries so I’m no longer harmed by others poor actions. Now, it’s often in behalf of others who tell me their stories of injustice and deep pain and the dragon in my soul perks up to proclaim “that is not right!” And my anger is usually right. I don’t view my dragon as unholy, it is just a part of me that has a very specific message to share with me and the world. It actually helps one of my spiritual gifts of discernment. I’m really good at sniffing out abuse and unfairness in relationships. And I’m really good at helping others address it in relationships. That comes from learning how to channel my anger into healthiness. To me my anger has been consecrated. I’ve been able to give all that I have to the Lord and he has made it holy and good. My anger is not gone; it is directed to help others make the first painful steps of healing usually in abusive situations. I don’t ask for anger to go away any more than I do compassion or joy or sorrow or love. It is a part of me. And when I give myself to God, it is enough and made holy. Note: the above experience of anger feels very different when I’m getting frustrated at my toddler for toddlering and I have to deep breath and pray for patience or take a minute to recollect. That is more an anger of tiredness and annoyance. That, I do have to curb and check in with myself to see what I’m needing to have a healthier response. I don’t assume that anger is the right Interaction to every experience. Other things that get people angry usually doesn’t for me now. Usually because I’ve learned to see the other side as a person or persons and don’t feel a need to paint them my enemy. i also still respond in anger to experiences of powerlessness in circumstances I have little control over. In that I have to work through the experiences, why it’s hurt so much that anger has come out this much, and heal my wounds. with luv, BD
  24. I’m of the opinion anger is absolutely necessary to experience. Not all forms of anger and not forever. But it should happen. Let me give you an easy example. Often when I’ve seen people who’ve experienced something bad in their lives anger is not the first emotion they go to. They choose either “softer” emotions or completely minimize the effect something traumatic had on them. So anger helps them recognize the true effect of something wrong and often moves them to finally take actions to stop the problem. It’s a protective emotion and sometimes it’s right to get protective. There are problems with anger. Just like prolonged intense sadness can be a sign of depression. Prolonged anger can be a sign of rage. Anger as a permanent go-to state is extremely unhealthy. It leads one to hyper focus on problems and blow them out of proportion. We can also get angry when we are in the wrong. This form of anger then protects us from really changing and growing in healthy ways. but overall anger to me is no more right or wrong than any other emotion. It’s a necessary part of processing experiences around us. with luv, BD
  25. Ehh…i have a fairly solid idea on why the bisexual part at least has drastically increased. He didn’t Note the big difference between men and women in ID’ing as bi. Women (so far…I think it’s also a little more socially acceptable for women to be bi than men) tend to have more sexual fluidity when it comes to arousal and more likely to have more variety in patterns of desire/attraction. The younger generations also increasingly want the exact label that describes them. There are sooooooo many terms to pin down your exact brand of sexual existence nowadays. And there’s a cultural shift in acknowledging even marginal experiences of sexual desire. Plus younger generations, where relationship history and maturity are limited, being bi may have more meaning than say a 50 year old who’s comfortable with their one partner of 20-30 years and doesn’t think much about the fact that they’ve found members of the same sex cute at times. In short there has to be at least some sense of attraction or capacity to be attracted to the same sex for that to happen for the vast majority of people who ID as bi, particularly. what he definites as conformity or socialization, I would describe as a cultural shift. In some ways I think that’s healthy. I had people who are older who fell into really unhealthy sexual patterns because of shame around their sexuality. They fell somewhere on a spectrum that leaned more gay, but had a capacity for opposite sex attraction to some degree and instead of acknowledging and incorporating both parts into who they are, one needed to be suppressed to maintain an appearance of straightness. This often doesn’t go well. This same thing is less a thing for those that comfortably acknowledge to some degree their attraction patterns. And by acknowledge, it could just be to their close loved ones and themselves and that’s enough for them. on the other, it sometimes feels to me like navel gazing and hyper individualistic. Instead of social values guiding your sexual expression, the individual is to follow their true sexual desires. Love is both naturalistic and a little fatalistic (finding the one, following love and desire, etc). Relationships are about compatibility and more consumerist (does this person match me and what I want v is this a person I can work with and love while working together to create family and goals). And of course there’s the concern of mislabeling concerns/experiences as something that it’s not exactly. I’m sure it happens with people who are LGB. i actually was listening to a podcast where a man thought he was gay…and then realized later he probably wasn’t. I don’t know how common that is, but either way the ramifications of it are likely minimal. At best you slowly realize you’re wrong and switch up how you relate or experience people. My concern with getting a trans ID wrong is that it can lead to irreversible change if hormones or surgery have already happened. And a trans narrative overlaps with several other experiences and problems that if a therapist isn’t astute in weeding out or really there at all, is more likely to fall into this mislabel long enough for cross sex hormones and/or surgery (the ones with long lasting if not permanent effects). It’s only the medical ramifications that really drive my concern for wanting to make sure people really are trans with persistent gender dysphoria and with a serious check on any confounding variables (trauma, dysfunctional/non-existent support systems, low sense of self-regard or healthy interests, signs of massive dysregulation would be my biggest yellow/red flags) with luv, BD
  • Create New...