I don't know why, but I feel like I need to post and get some things off my chest. Maybe someone has some insight that I don't. Okay so here we go.
Back in late May (or maybe it was early June), I had a breakdown of sorts. I'm always overstressed, and then a lot of stuff with a female friend sort of blew up. The result was a lack of desire to do anything and a stomach that constantly hurt (or at least hurt enough that I didn't want nor could eat anything). I mentioned this to my parents, and they started taking action.
By late June, I had started seeing a psychologist. Why a psychologist? I'm not sure. I just knew I needed help of some kind and that these problems seemed to large for me alone. So the first thing that the psychologist does is give me a variety of personality tests. Within two weeks we get the results back, and it says that I suffer from a) depression, b) anxiety, c) social anxiety, and d) low self esteem. These are all obvious things to me; I don't know if they surprised my parents.
The psychologist blamed all the problems he saw in my life (things like lack of friends and lack of girlfriend) on those first three (although mainly the third one). He seemed to think getting me on to a drug of some kind to combat my anxiety would allow me "to live the life you want."
I tried to explain to him though that the lack of friends thing didn't bother me. I've never had a large number of friends in the past; at most, I've had maybe 5-10 and even those I only saw at school. I tried to explain to him how a good deal of people either bother me or annoy me, mainly because people my age (the 19-20 year old crowd) tend to act like immature, obnoxious kids. I also tried to explain that being alone a good deal of the time didn't bother me that much either. He really didn't seem to buy either though, since he claimed that my being annoyed/bothered by people was just a way for me to avoid social situations and not provoke anxiety.
I told him I did agree that my anxiety might be hindering relationships with the female sex, but I didn't think it was to the degree that he thought. He assumed that the reason I didn't have a girlfriend was because I was held back by the anxiety and too afraid or unable to talk to them. Well that's part of it, but not all of it.
[start long rant/tangent]
A large part of it is that as I and my peers have gotten older, the number of girls I think I would get on with has dwindled. See here's the thing, I'm a really moral guy. I'm one of those people who always tries to do the right thing. As such, I've never smoked or anything, and I don't drink (since it'd be illegal at my age) and may never. I'm also in the small "I'm not having sex until I'm married" group. So when it comes to girls, I expect the same sort of thing. I expect them not to smoke, I hope they don't drink (although I give some leeway here), and I expect them not to have had sex.
The problem is that the number of girls who haven't had sex dwindles from the late high school years through college. Each year the percentage of girls who haven't drops slightly. To give rough figures, the year I graduated high school, it was a 50/50 split between had and hadn't. By the middle of my freshmen year of college (albeit at a different location, but still same age group), that number had dropped to about 55/45 or so. From the way some older people I know speak (including my brother), it only gets worse the older you get. Okay, so if we takes this requirement for girls that they have not had sex and add in my standards as far as physical attraction (which aren't too high) and personality compatibilty, the number of girls I might get along with and have a future with drops each year.
[/end long rant/tangent]
Upon hearing this, my psychologist decided that the solution was I needed to be involved in more church groups or something. Once more, I had to point out flaws.
[start another long rant/tangent]
Okay, so technically I am a Baptist, seeing as how I attended a Baptist church for 3 years or so when I was younger and I was baptized there and all. I learned over time though that I don't like people preaching to me (which is a vague thing to say, but it's hard to describe). I feel that religion is a really, really personal thing, and I don't feel comfortable talking about it. On top of that, by the time I was 12 or so, I was seeing some hypocrisies among a good percentage of the people attending my church. Due to these two things, I stopped attending church. I still consider myself fairly religious, but I don't attend church and I don't like most church-based or religious-based activities/groups.
With this in mind, the idea of going to church groups to meet girls didn't appeal to me at all. I feel that I'll either get preached at or see/hear something that will frustrate/bother me. Perhaps I should be open to compromise more there, but it just doesn't feel right. When something doesn't feel right to me, I don't do it.
[/end long rant/tangent]
So here I am, after six weeks of therapy, and I'm about to go back to school. The psychologist is still recommending that I see a psychiatrist so that I can get some medicines prescribed for my depression and anxiety. I'm still unsure about that. I'm heading back to school: a place where I spend 90% of my time alone in my room either studying, watching TV, or hanging out on the internet. The other 10% of my time is going to class. It's not a fun place in my opinion. I spend a lot of time bored, and I have too much time to think and ponder (which is what led to this initial breakdown in the first place). I'm not sure what's going to happen. I just know I still feel bad and I don't feel hopeful about the future. Things don't seem to be going my way. Okay, that's the end of my post. Thanks to anyone who actually read it and more thanks to anyone who replies.
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
Kudos to you for being a moral man. I applaud that, and loudly. Don't worry so much about there not being women who meet your morals - there are plenty out there. A fair number of them are religious, and most I know are LDS. But they're definitely out there.
It sounds like you're an introvert. I am, too, and I've got social phobias as well. The social phobias don't make me an introvert, but they do make socializing more difficult. Oh well. I can understand with your psychologist's point of view, but don't entirely agree with him. I think that, while he may be an expert in his field, you are the expert on you. So if something he says really doesn't resonate with you, I'd say trust your gut. That's not the same as resisting what he says out of fear, by the way, and it can be a fine line distinguishing between the two.
It also sounds like you need to develop some interests. Being that bored isn't healthy. I'd suggest you do something that really interests you. Sports? Writing? Reading groups? Drawing? Painting? Sculpting? Basket weaving? Archaeology? Think of something you've always wanted to learn about, and then do it. In the process, you'll also meet other people with the same interests as you, and who knows, maybe you'll develop more friendships. At the very least, you'll have fun because you're doing something that interests you.
Other people will be here shortly to give more suggestions. . .
Good luck. Posted by pfresh85 (Member # 8085) on :
I wish I had more hobbies to be honest. I like writing, but it's not as social. I mean I took a Creative Writing class this last semester, and it was sort of fun but stressing too. Stressing mainly because I overly criticized my own work in my head (too much thinking again) and then I worried what everyone else would say/think. Too much anxiety there. Maybe my psychologist was right at least somewhat about medications. I mean just writing this out, I'm realizing that I sort of backed away from something I enjoyed merely because it stressed me out. On another note, thanks for the reply. :-)
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Personal moral standards are great and wonderful things. Expecting others to live up to them is often where problems arise.
This:
quote:"I'm not having sex until I'm married" group. So when it comes to girls, I expect the same sort of thing. I expect them not to smoke, I hope they don't drink (although I give some leeway here), and I expect them not to have had sex.
Is fine in general, but if you miss out on a relationship with a great woman because you find out she's had sex, you may be over-emphasizing virginity.
It'd be well to remember that men more often than women get to choose the time and circumstances of their first sexual encounter. Would you reject a rape victim? What if you told her about your "moral stance" and she felt she could never share her story? What if she's feeling guilt even though she was the victim?
What if she engaged in sex once and decided that it wasn't the right decision? What if she decided relatively recently that extra-marital sex is just something she's no longer seeking or interested in, but that she's really ready for a lifetime commitment?
My advice is to concentrate on finding someone who will make you a good partner. Part of that is going to be that she shares most or all of your opinions on what is moral and best, to be sure. But sometimes people make mistakes and learn from them.
I'm not saying you should relax your morals. But maybe temper your expectations with a willingness to understand and look at the person as they are today, and maybe not worry overmuch about the path they took to get there.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
It sounds like you just want comments on your situation. Here they are; take what you want and leave the rest.
You agree that there's a problem. I think you don't agree with the shrink's recommendations.
Here's the thing. If you keep doing what you're doing, you'll get what you have right now. If you do something different, you may get something different. It may not be what you want; if that's the case, you can stop doing it, and do something else.
If you try different things, though, you may eventually find one that you want.
Meeting women: if this is a goal, you've got a problem. You don't want to meet women outside the church because they aren't moral. You don't want to meet them inside the church because someone might preach at you. That rules out all women!
But I do believe that you will be uncomfortable in the church groups. The thing to do, I think, is to recognize: I need social interaction. The breakdown shows I need something! So I'll go, and I know I'll end up talking to the potted plants or getting preached at part of the time, and I'll live through it.
The part of you that guards against being uncomfortable needs to be honored. It's trying to protect you! But it's being overprotective now, I think. Bless it, and go.
I notice that much of your post, regarding social interaction, was about women. What about hanging out with guys? If this is a problem too, then, well, it's a problem. For most of us, it's easier, and it's also (IMHO) more basic. Anyway, it's another kind of social interaction to pursue.
When you have deep friendships, you can bring those thoughts associated with the breakdown into the open, and de-fang them, I think.
If you've been at it a month, and you're still uncomfortable, or your friendships aren't deep enough, or something else is wrong . . . time to go back, I think, to the principle: try something different, and get something different. Or: keep pushing till something gives.
Best of luck.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I am in a simular situation, only I am a bit older. Recently I saw a psychologist from Germany who had the piercing eyes of a hawk. She did not suggest pills but wanted me to go out and be social more. I half-hate being social. It's frustrating and annoying to deal with people I don't know. I am usually silent in large groups of people and not that good at small talk. And yet, I would not mind dating someone and the like and getting into a serious relationship. I do not have a religion so I don't exactly want to wait until marriage, but I'd at least like to wait until I am serious about the person and they are serious enough about me to respect me and not use me. I do not have enough close, deep local friends, but I still have a few friends from college and some close online friends. It is hard for me to meet new people because of how weird I am for one thing and how frustrating people can be at times...
Posted by pfresh85 (Member # 8085) on :
Okay, I'm going to comment on a few things from each post. First in regards to the rape victim thing, there are exceptions to all rules. I mean if it was forced on the person, I can't hold it against them. With the "What if she engaged in sex once and decided that it wasn't the right decision? What if she decided relatively recently that extra-marital sex is just something she's no longer seeking or interested in, but that she's really ready for a lifetime commitment?," I can't go with that. Why? Because part of my little mental breakdown came from me going with it. I had a good female friend who I was really close to. I knew she was having sex with her boyfriend, but at the same time she told me a) that they were going to get married within the next year or so and b) that she sometimes regretted doing it and wished she had waited till marriage. So I made an exception for her. Well then the boyfriend broke up with her. I assumed she would move on with her life and start dating and such, but at the least I thought she would stick through with what she had said. That didn't happen. Shortly after the break up, she just started drinking heavily, making out with random guys, and complaining about how much she wanted/needed sex. This was sort of a flip flop from her earlier stance, and it bothered me. If she had been that way all along (saying that she wanted/needed sex and not that she regretted having it before marriage), it would make sense to me and I'd be okay with it. It's this sudden change of personality that bothered me. This stuff led to further problems which contributed to my breakdown. So yeah, I've decided since then that I shouldn't make exceptions, because apparently people change their whole moral philosophy on the drop of a hat.
Next post: In regards to your comment Will B that I've ruled out all women, then you see my problem. I don't feel comfortable/good about going to a church, and I don't know if I'd find a woman that meets my "standards" outside of church. It's no good. As for male friends, I don't know. It's hard to explain. Even when I was a lot younger or even more recently, I've never had more than a handful of friends, and most of my friends I only see at school. I think mainly the reason I didn't see them outside of school was that they (like a lot of people) were either loud or obnoxious outside of school (or at least more so than in school) and, in the case of one group of friends I had, they seemed to want to prove they were smarter than me if I did hang out with them (mostly by beating me at chess, go, Risk, etc.). In either case, I was always frustrated to be around them, so over time I just stopped hanging out with them outside of school. That leads to my current situation at college: I have probably 4 or 5 friends and I see them rarely if at all. Does it bother me? Not really. You'd probably say "well if not having friends doesn't bother you, why does the women thing?," and my only response is that the friends thing doesn't ever preoccupy my thinking as the women thing has/does. I overthink and overworry about the women thing, whereas I put little thinking/worrying into the friends thing (mainly because I don't care one way or the other). I don't know if that made any sense; I'm not sure if it makes sense to me. It is how I feel though.
Thanks again to all who have replied. Other views/opinions on the situation are always helpful.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
pfresh...
I'm confused. You had a mental breakdown because someone else was conflicted in her attitude about sex? Were you sexually active with her? (You've said "no" but I'm sort of confused on this point now).
I can also see how seeing a close friend go through troubles like what you describe could color ones perspective on things. Allow me to say, however, that she is a sample of exactly 1 and not indicative of the entire human condition.
A cautionary tale is to be found there, to be sure. But a personal breakdown and a life's philosophy/morality?
Either there's more to the situation than you've told us, or your reaction to it is on the extreme side.
Something isn't quite making sense to me here.
Posted by Chungwa (Member # 6421) on :
I'm like you in a lot of ways, too.
I don't have too many friends and I'm okay with that. I have trouble meeting ladies and, for the most part, I'm okay with that, too.
But it sounds as if you may be judging people prematurely.
Please keep in mind that I don't have the strict moral guidelines for women that you do. As for the example you give with your friend, I'd question how much her having sex actually had to do with her "personality change." Yes, her change was about sex, but sex may have not been the reason. I'm not certain I'm making sense here.
I'm not suggesting you change your morals, but (and I may be way off base here) it sounds like you might have some trust issues that could be hindering your search for a good lady. Are you really concerned that someone who once had sex and now pledges not to must certainly be a person of low moral standards who changes her mind every hour?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: This stuff led to further problems which contributed to my breakdown. So yeah, I've decided since then that I shouldn't make exceptions, because apparently people change their whole moral philosophy on the drop of a hat.
Here's the problem: not everyone thinks of a certain component of their philosophy as being their "whole moral philosophy." I had sex before marriage; does that tell you what my moral philosophy is?
Posted by pfresh85 (Member # 8085) on :
The breakdown wasn't due only to that; there was a lot of other stuff that had built up over the last 5 years or so. That was somewhat the straw that broke the camel's back or whatever. In regard to Tom's comment, well maybe I oversimplified and made it pertain to the whole group of people when it doesn't. The thing with this friend was that it was a complete shift. She went from being one person (or at least acting like one person around me) to being a totally different person. It bothered me a great deal that a) I couldn't tell that about her from the start (it makes me doubt my ability to judge character at all) and b) that someone could shift who they were so rapidly. Perhaps I shouldn't base my whole philosophy on it, but right now, I'm having a hard time seeing the other side of the issue.
EDIT: I'm editting to say that I do have trust issues, but that they don't stem from this particular girl or experience. They stem more from friends and my first girlfriend and issues that pertain to that. I'll post more about that if someone would find it helpful.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
pfresh...
It's not whether WE find it helpful. This is all rather intrusive into YOUR life and psyche. I feel like I'm being asked to sympathize with you and so far I don't understand. But maybe you just wanted someone to listen and not try to offer opinions, in which case I'm behaving rather boorishly.
You are obviously young. Your friend was/is young. Young people aren't necessarily stable (in the sense of having fully formed their core personality traits), and even small problems can have big effects at that age (and even into adulthood, of course).
But that is not meant to say that I discount your opinion or your moral stance. See...this is tricky stuff. I'd like to encourage anyone who holds high moral standards. At the same time, I see trouble if you expect others to live up to those standards, or if you make those kind of demands the criteria upon which you would select a future friend or mate.
I'm not saying ignore your own morality. But I am saying that rigidity in it is neither healthy from a psychological viewpoint nor is it strictly a Christian virtue (if one is aiming to follow Christ's example).
So...maybe there's a bit of room for caring more about the interpersonal side of things and using your moral code as a check on your own behavior?
Posted by pfresh85 (Member # 8085) on :
I don't know. Trying to think up a coherent reply, I'm sort of stumbling. I understand what you're saying about it not being a Christian value (in fact, I had a talk with my brother and told me that "it wasn't the moral high ground"), but at the same time it's not something I want to change. To me, it's like this: say there was a bear or something outside. The bear agrees that if one person will come outside, the rest of the people can go free/be safe/whatever. I feel like I'm volunteering to go out and face the bear, while everyone else is just partying in the house and acting like the bear is just a normal thing. Not sure if that really makes sense. I just feel like I'm keeping myself in check, so people I associate with should at least try and keep themselves in check as well. I don't know. It doesn't make so much sense typed out, but it makes sense in my head. As for still being young, you're right, but still, being 20 and feeling like you're 30-35 is not good.
Posted by Chungwa (Member # 6421) on :
quote:Originally posted by pfresh85: . To me, it's like this: say there was a bear or something outside. The bear agrees that if one person will come outside, the rest of the people can go free/be safe/whatever. I feel like I'm volunteering to go out and face the bear, while everyone else is just partying in the house and acting like the bear is just a normal thing. Not sure if that really makes sense. I just feel like I'm keeping myself in check, so people I associate with should at least try and keep themselves in check as well. I don't know. It doesn't make so much sense typed out, but it makes sense in my head.
Actually, that makes a great deal of sense to me. However, most people wont see it the way you do.
You're setting a moral code for yourself and then demanding others who are to be your friends follow it. Everyone does that to a point - but it's also somewhat selfish.
For example, if I were to, tomorrow, meet the girl of my dreams but found out that she was upset that I've had sex before I met her, well, obviously there'd be a problem. Even if we both connected on all the important things - if I was forever trying to gain her forgiveness our relationship wouldn't work. My point with this is that you may miss out on knowing some wonderful people, who are genuinly good people, because you place your morals so completely on them.
Edit: I should say that if it is important to you, truly important, you shouldn't back down from expecting other people to have strong morals. The problem, of course, is what those morals are. If you really believe (which, it seems as though you may) what your typing, then maybe you should hold potential girlfriends to the code you do. But it will have a cost.
Posted by pfresh85 (Member # 8085) on :
Well see it's important to me, but I and everyone else can see where it is getting me. I'm alone and have little hope for the future as far as dating goes. It's not a fun situation. The alternatives don't seem too good to me either, since in my head, they all seem to be me compromising who I am. Maybe they aren't and my mind just isn't working right. I don't think I know really anymore.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: In regard to Tom's comment, well maybe I oversimplified and made it pertain to the whole group of people when it doesn't. The thing with this friend was that it was a complete shift. She went from being one person (or at least acting like one person around me) to being a totally different person. It bothered me a great deal that a) I couldn't tell that about her from the start (it makes me doubt my ability to judge character at all) and b) that someone could shift who they were so rapidly
Except that she didn't. She remained the same person. And she remained, in fact, the same person you liked. The problem is not hers, but yours: you need to decide how it was possible that you liked someone who doesn't share your attitude towards premarital sex.
Frankly, I think that makes you a better person, anyway.
Posted by pfresh85 (Member # 8085) on :
Wait, how did she not change? I know she was having sex and so the sex thing itself didn't change, but her attitude toward it definitely did. She went from saying she did it only because they were going to get married and that she regretted doing it quite often to now saying she loves sex and needs it (particularly in any future dating relationships). How is that not changing? Sorry if this is coming out angry, but to me it seems like you are telling me she didn't change who she was at all.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
She didn't. At most, her attitude towards sex changed. And even then, she was still someone who was willing to have premarital sex; all that changed was her prerequisites.
Your attitude towards sex does not define you as a person.
Posted by pfresh85 (Member # 8085) on :
It may not define all of you, but it does define some things about you and what you put value in.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
Let me start out by saying I stand firmly behind Bob on this, and I won't restate our position because he already said it a lot more clearly and succinctly than I could.
I wonder if maybe your friend was masking her real feelings about sex because she knew how you felt about it, and didn't want you to think less of her. So she painted you a picture of her regretting it, and wishing she waited. Now that she's single, it's a little hard to stick with that, because she really does like sex, and feel it's an important part of dating. So it's either change her pretend stance or be a huge hypocrite.
Even if that's not the case, it's obvious you have serious trust issues. I don't know your backstory, but these things usually have a long string of causal events.
Regardless, I just want you to realize one thing:
Part of the problem is with others - because they don't live up to your standards.
Part of the problem is with you - because your standards are unreasonably high.
You can live your life however you choose, and I'm not encouraging you to compromise your morals, because I respect them. I am encouraging you to allow people to get close to you without being perfect. It's stressful, and utterly unfulfilling, trying to be a saint. People are flawed, and you have to accept that. Learn to love them in spite of this, and I think you'll be a happier person.
Posted by pfresh85 (Member # 8085) on :
I understand what you're saying, and even though you amy not believe it, I agree with what you are saying. At the same time though, there's something I want to say. I'm not asking people to be saints, but I am asking them to try and do the right thing. I know sometimes people fail (all people make mistakes and have flaws), but they should at least try first. A lot of people now seem not to even try: they seem to think some morals and rules/laws get in the way of their fun and so just discard them. That's what bothers me. These people who don't even try, and it seems that number is climbing day by day. Sorry if this seems overly negative; I'm in one of my depressed moods at the moment.
Posted by Chungwa (Member # 6421) on :
Well when you do that, though, you push your morals on others (sometimes this is good, sometimes it isn't).
For example, I have had premarital sex. Are you suggesting that I have failed at trying to be a good person?
What I mean is that many, many people do not see some actions as throwing away morals in pursuit of hedonism. They just have different morals than you do. It can be difficult dealing with that. It may be worth remembering that perhaps you don't live up to all their moral expectation either.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
I'm afraid you're right about the moral decay in this country. I've noticed it too, and I don't like it. I avoid the people that you described, and I have a group of friends (several groups, actually) that, for all their flaws, are funny, compassionate, good guys.
I hold people to high standards, too. I expect a lot out of myself, and I expect almost as much out of my friends. It's been a hard lesson to learn that not everyone places the same emphasis on the things I do. Things like returning phone calls and being where I say I'm gonna be when I say I'm gonna be there are very important to me, and it annoys me when my friends don't do these things. They know this about me, and they make more of an effort to do these things, especially when I'm involved. In return, I give a lot of leeway when they don't do these things.
It took me a long time to be able to say to myself "Don't take it personally, that's just how xxxx is. It's no reflection on you or your friendship."
My relationships are a lot easier to maintain since I came to that realization.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
pfresh:
Have you onsidered that you are just as much ruled by sex as a person who "needs it" is? You are ruled by the avoidance of it, the concern about other's attitudes towards it, and your own search for a woman who hasn't had it yet.
I can definitely see how it might be that a person who knows your attitude on the subject might tell you something more like what you want to hear versus what they truly feel. Also, I can see how a person might one day be feeling so down on themselves that they'd share the worst view of themself that have.
We're really not so simple as all one thing or another. Most of us anyway. She might regret having had sex with a guy who she is no longer involved with and yet still enjoy sex. She might have guilt over that. She might sometimes wish she were still a virgin. And sometimes not.
And I can also see how, if you truly feel she's being self-destructive, that it would trouble you and wish taht she had a better handle on who she is and what she wanted.
But sometimes we have to choose what is more important, the person or our principles. Sometimes it IS better to stick to ones principles and thereby avoid trouble, strife, and even damaging another person because we can't be helpful in the way they would accept. It's never easy. And sometimes being a friend means overlooking the flaws and foibles and helping to pick up the pieces when someone really needs it.
I'm not in a position to say which I think is going on in the situation you've described. I'm just worried that the change you perceived in your friend was so upsetting to you that it contributed to your mental breakdown.
...
I don't think you really answered my question before, but maybe you did.
If you found a person who believes NOW that sex should only be within the bonds of marriage, would you be willing to not ask about how she felt in the past, or would you have to know that she had at all times held that conviction and lived up to it?
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
You're painting with a very broad moral brush, there.
quote:I'm not asking people to be saints, but I am asking them to try and do the right thing.
What if I don't think that avoiding sex unless I'm married is the right thing? Because I don't. "Married or not married" is not one of the moral parameters that I consider when deciding whether or not to have sex with someone. That doesn't mean that I'm ignoring what's right and wrong, it simply means that my perception of right and wrong differs from yours.
Where do these moral rules that you say everybody should be abiding by come from, anyway? It seems to me that they come from religion. Do you think that agnostics and atheists should also abide by what you believe to be the correct morality?
Posted by pfresh85 (Member # 8085) on :
Okay, I'm going to try and reply to everyone if I can. Let's see. Chungwa, you may be right. I may need to be more tolerant, but it's hard when a lot of the kids I see are the wild ones. That's one of the things I dislike about college. Too many wild kids everyhwere.
El JT de Spang, I may need to take your phrase, "Don't take it personally, that's just how xxxx is. It's no reflection on you or your friendship." I think it'd make some of my relationships a little better.
Bob, in regards to the first part of your post, I think she did go into a sort of self-destructive type phase. She started smoking, drinking heavier, and then all the sex stuff. That troubled me by itself, but it also troubled me because I thought I should have seen it coming but I didn't. Maybe I was too entangled in my own thoughts, but it came as surprise to me. For those saying that maybe she was saying these things to me because it was me and she knew how I felt, I could say maybe that is true, except some of the things she said before she knew me too well (and knew any of my stances on such stuff). Bob could be right with the sometimes regret/sometimes don't thing. I'll say this since some of you may see something in: she and I are not good friends any longer. When I pointed out her self-destructive behavior (not in a bad way I think, I tried really hard to be nice), she flipped out on me and basically cursed me out and tried to point out any and all flaws in my personality.
In regards to the final question Bob posed, I don't know to be honest. Part of me would want to know what she felt in the past, but part of me would be content with knowing what she felt at this moment. Which part would actually come out on top I can't tell. It's always a conflict in my head between different groups of thought.
twinky, some of your points I may argue. Some of my moral rules did come from religion, true, but not all of them. I get just as frustrated with people who drink underage as I do with people who have promiscuous sex. Do I think agnostics/atheists/anyone should abide by what I believe to be morally correct? Not at all. They will do what they want. By the same token though, they shouldn't expect to be close to me, or at least not as close as people morally similar to myself. Case in point, I have an atheist friend, but the connection between us is a lot weaker than with some of my friends, mainly because he doesn't see the point in any of the rules that myself and other friends of mine follow. That's not to say I actively dislike him because he disagrees with me about morality and what not, just that we don't get on as well as we would otherwise.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
I think the important distinction, for me at least, is promiscuous sex. Sex can be an important part of a relationship. I'm no longer one of the "not till I'm married" people, but I don't believe in casual sex. I think there needs to be an emotional component. So one night stands are promiscuous, but unmarried couples who have sex are not, in my view.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with sex, but as with most things, context is very important.
Posted by pfresh85 (Member # 8085) on :
Well my old stance (not for myself but for judging others) was that if they had been in a serious relationship (I'd say a good year at least) and were at least thinking about a possible future together and then had sex, it was okay. That stance probably lasted through high school and part of the first year of college. Then it went to if they inteded to get married it was okay. Now I am where I am. Sort of been a downward/limiting progression.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: By the same token though, they shouldn't expect to be close to me, or at least not as close as people morally similar to myself.
I too tend to befriend people who are morally similar to myself.
What I consider an important moral and what you consider an important moral, however, appear to be very different.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
Your statement that "Then it went to if they inteded to get married it was okay. Now I am where I am", seems incredibly judgmental to me. They don't need your "okay". And you gain nothing by inflicting your standards upon them. And you probably lose potential relationships with truly beautiful people who don't see the world the way that you do.
Focus on what is "okay" for you. What system of values brings you the greatest happiness? I applaud you for trying to follow that system. But how does judging others benefit you? From all that you've said, it's only brought you pain.
Posted by pfresh85 (Member # 8085) on :
Go back to my bear example. That is why I judge peopel based on my values. And nowhere did I say people needed my okay; people will do what they do. What I did say was that I wouldn't associate myself with such people.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
If you are doing the noble thing in your mind and going out and facing the bear, that's great. But to the people in the house, you might just be fighting windmills. There is no need to feel resentment just because they don't see the nobleness of your deed.
I could definately understand if you prefered people who agreed with your moral standards. But saying "I wouldn't associate myself with such people" seems only harmful. If you enjoyed a person in every way except for their inability to see the danger of the bear, why should you not associate with them? Part of being social is realizing that other people are not you and that that's ok. Everybody makes mistakes and nobody agrees on everything. Being judgmental is a vice that has already hurt you. Compassion and understanding for others do not take away from your values. And from what you've stated, I believe they would make social interaction more pleasant for you.
Posted by Chungwa (Member # 6421) on :
I said I understood your bear example - but I don't really agree with it when it comes to sex.
For example, what are the similarities between you giving yourself up to the bear for your friends and two people, is some cases neither of them you, making choices about their sexual activities?
It seems someone would have to score pretty high on your test to become your friend. That's not always a bad thing, but I think you'll miss out knowing some great people based on some pretty silly reasons.
(I'm not calling your moral beliefs silly, I'm just trying to better get my point across with that word)
Posted by pfresh85 (Member # 8085) on :
The thing is this isn't a major issue with friendships. Most of my friends don't meet up to these standards, and I'm still friends with them. Perhaps not as good as I could be, but we're still friends. A lot of this judgement stuff has to deal with potential girlfriends/mates/whatever. Perhaps I should be more forgiving of certain things, but then it seems to me like I'm always compromising and no one else really is (or at the very least I'm compromising a lot more than they are).
EDIT: The bear thing does relate to other people though. In the example, other people should be going with me to go after the bear (or at least trying to volunteer to do it), but they aren't. Instead they are ignoring the bear and going about their fun. That's what bothers me.
Posted by Chungwa (Member # 6421) on :
Well, I wish you luck with your friends and with meeting potential girlfriends. I do hope you can get things sorted out to your liking.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
I'm glad that this isn't a major issue with your friendships, perhaps I misunderstood. I'm sorry that it feels lonely going after the bear alone. But it seems unfair to think less of others for doing what you are doing- following their own beliefs.
Posted by pfresh85 (Member # 8085) on :
I'd try and say something, but I doubt I can convince you it's not unfair. I mean I'm not hindering anyone believing what they want. *shrugs* I guess it doesn't matter though.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:...don't meet up to these standards...
quote:...more forgiving of certain things... I'm always compromising and no one else really is...
quote:Instead they are ignoring the bear and going about their fun.
The key is that those of us who are "going about our fun" don't believe we're doing anything wrong. I'm not failing to meet your moral standards; I have different moral standards that I do my best to meet.
I actually think it's kind of important to have sexual experience before marriage, both with your eventual life partner (more so) and with other people (less so). Should I look down on you for not conforming to my standards? No. I respect you for having standards that you adhere to. I think your standards are wrong, but you think mine are wrong too, and that's fine.
I think you're taking this a bit too seriously. If you don't want to have sex before marriage, that's fine, but there's no need to look down your nose at everyone who does. Perhaps rather than telling your friends or girls you think what they're doing is wrong you could advise them to go about it as safely as possible. Look at it this way: it's one thing to have sex with multiple partners, but it's quite another to have that sex with no condoms and no other birth control mechanism (and yes, I think some redundancy is important; the risks are comparatively low if you're careful but nonetheless there's no such thing as too careful when it comes to sex).
Posted by pfresh85 (Member # 8085) on :
See, the thing is I don't ever really talk about this to friends or girls. This isn't like something I discuss casually. So when you say I'm looking down my nose at them if they do, it's not really true. Most of my friends have and I don't hate them or even dislike them for it. Sure I wish they hadn't and such, but it's not something that makes or breaks my friendship. With girls, it's a non-issue at the moment. If you recall from my first post, I suffer from social anxiety + low self-esteem, so it's rare that I talk to girls anyways (so it's not like I'm going around rejecting girls left and right for this). It's just something that bothers me. I don't feel good about any of this. I feel like I'm in a lose-lose situation with no win path out.
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
Good lord, pfresh is me in high school. It's like looking backwards through time.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Sure I wish they hadn't...
I think there's a distinction between saying "I wish you hadn't done that" and saying "that's something I wouldn't do."
As to social anxiety and low self esteem, I think working on the former will help with the latter, but unfortunately the only way out is through -- I mean, you have given reasons why you don't want to do the things the therapist suggested (e.g. go to more church group activities), and they aren't bad reasons, but if you don't do something then nothing changes. You can't just sit around hoping for things to get better. I'd choose the least bad option and work on that. Posted by pfresh85 (Member # 8085) on :
Maybe I just need to start taking the medications and then maybe see about joining a church group. Make some kind of compromise that way or something. I don't know.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
I have no idea about meds, but the worst that can happen if you join a church group is that you don't like it and stop going. All you'd lose is time. Posted by pfresh85 (Member # 8085) on :
Well the reason I mention the meds is my anxiety. I always just thought that social situations left me drained because I was an introvert, but now I know it's the anxiety. Even being around a handful of people (outside of family and really close friends) is really draining, and I'm low-energy as it is. I think the meds might help some in letting me not stress and worry while around the church group, and maybe I'd enjoy it more. I don't know.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Social anxiety is a debilitating condition. If you are reasonably convinced that you suffer from it, and you trust your doctor is competent to help you deal with it, then follow the doctor's advice.
There are good and bad things about the drug therapies available today. The good thing is that they appear to be affective: people who really do have the conditions are generally helped by the medications more than people given a placebo treatment. The many medications available work slightly differently so there's a pretty good chance that a competent doctor can find one that gives you relief without leaving you disatisfied because of side effects.
The bad side of today's drug therapies is: 1) We aren't precisely sure how the drugs work. Their mechanisms of action are known in the sense that we know which neurotransmitters are boosted or suppressed, and we have a good idea of the brain areas affected, but mood and emotion are terribly complex things which we are only scratching the surface. 2) Many people get them from unqualified physicians. A trained psychologist working with you can do more than just evaluate your meds and tweak them to where you get maximimum relief with minimum side effects. They can also help you work through better coping strategies and be an active listener. Get a good doc. 3) If the meds don't work, it could be because you don't have the malady. Or it could be your version of it is different. It's a tough call. Often the meds become a diagnostic tool themselves. Drug A didn't work, so maybe the patient isn't suffering from syndrome "X", try drug B...if that works, it's syndrome "Y." There just aren't good lab tests for most mental illness.
But, here's the thing. You probably want to concentrate on "fixing" one thing at a time. If you are really suffering from social anxiety and depression, getting help and relief from those would seem to be more important than finding a woman right now. Deepening depression or a worsening of generalized anxiety are both things that are best avoided. If the meds help, then that's a good thing. If other therapies help, that's a good thing too. Either way, it'd mean that you'll be more capable of making sound decisions that you'll be happier with in the long run.
Church groups are wonderful things. If you are suffering from true clinical depression or a serious anxiety disorder, the church group route is not likely to be of much help with those. At the same time, it's unlikely to hurt (unless you end up in one of those groups that discourages people from seeking medical treatment for mental conditions -- that could be harmful.)
Posted by pfresh85 (Member # 8085) on :
Well I saw a psychologist for about 6 weeks. He initially had me doing some different therapy things, but they didn't work. During that time, he also gave me various personality tests and what not. They all came back with depression, regular anxiety, social anxiety, and low self-esteem. Since he was a psychologist, he couldn't prescribe medicines for these himself, but he recommended that I visit a psychiatrist for medicinal consultation or something of that nature. My father sent him a list of psychiatrists approved by our insurance (and near my apartment at school), and we've just been waiting to hear back about what he thinks. As I think I said, the psychologist seemed to think medicine of some kind was the best thing for me, since most other types of therapy he threw at me failed.
As for the church thing, I just figured it'd be a way to meet more people with similar morals and what not. I'm not sure whether I will or not. If I did, I'm not sure what church I might go to (since I'm no longer sure what religion I fit in under). We'll see though.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
But they're definitely out there.![[Smile]](smile.gif)