(no subject)

[bacskocky.livejournal.com]

It's people liek this that cause the world of multiples to never be seen for what it truly is

(btw, for those of you who don't know me (pretty much everyone) I'm a non-multiple whose SO is a member of a multiple system)

EDIT:

The purpose of me posting this was not to bash one specific person for their belief on how they should treat my SO. This is jsut the first example I've gotten that is in WRITING of the way so many people think that a few pamphlets, a couple documentaries, and maybe a book or two and they're geniuses on the topic. They're the ones who don't see that whether someone is faking the "disorder" or not, it is often a defense mechanism, not something for purely attention. Even if it IS for attention, maybe teh person believes that surrounding themselves with a large number of peopel on the outside will protect them.

Comments

Re: *glee*

[elenbarathi.livejournal.com]

"A word of advice: if you are realy MPD, then have a "spokespersonality" and have them deal with the real world."

What you're saying here is that people who are really multiple (whether "MPD" or not) should play-act a false single self - like gay people staying 'in the closet', pretending to be something they're not, so as to avoid offending someone else's idea of what's accepatable or "real".

Suppose you told a family of people you considered to be your friends that dealing with all of them was too confusing, and that you'd really prefer they choose just one person to speak for all of them? Suppose you were a member of a family who was told that; how do you think you'd feel?

The fact that your little social group doesn't know jack-shit about multiplicity besides what you've seen and read in the sensationalist schlock media is understandable, because you've probably never had any reason to learn about it before now. So fine - learn something (http://www.karitas.net/blackbirds/layman/whatis.html) - ignorance is curable. Unfortunately, bigotry usually isn't.

In case you're wondering, I'm the "spokesperson" for my House most of the time only because my Kin don't usually choose to deal with other people. They've got some friends, but they're nowhere near as social as me, so usually prefer to "front" when they can pursue their own (solitary) interests. I'm not the "main one"; I'm just the talky one, and my opinions are only my own.

If someone, or a group of people, considered me crazy or a liar because they learned I share this body with others, I would sure as hell NOT consider them my friends. Not that people have to be friends with all of us - in physical families, being friends with one sibling doesn't mean you're friends with all. But dissing your friend's family is very likely to wreck your friendship, and that's even more true with "families" that share a single body.

I'm more and more starting to think that the real mistake chrisau8r made was in not realizing that just because she hangs out with a group of people (in realtime or online) who share some of her interests, that this means they're friends who care about her and can be trusted with personal information. With luck, she won't make THAT mistake again.

Probably quite a few people in your group have revealed stuff that could be used to hurt them, and now, seeing what's happened to chrisau8r, are uncomfortably wondering whether the same sort of thing's going to happen to them - so, this whole incident can serve as a little lesson for all of you.

Re: *glee*

[binkenstein.livejournal.com]

I'm not a friend of hers. At most, I would have considered myself an "associate".
If I had a friend with MPD, I'm not sure what I'd do. I haven't come accross the situation and have learnt that whatever guesses as to my reactions in any situation, I can be wrong. I spose if I'd observed possible MPD type behaviour, I'd be open to the option.
Yes, I certainly didn't know "jack shit" because there wasn't any useful information on the "user info" for the community. Thanks for that link. There were some things I disagree with (especialy the "one-soul-per-body" thing, but that has to do with my lack of religious beliefs).
I'm not saying that multiples don't exist, I'm just sceptical. Mind you, I'm sceptical and cynical about most things.

In Chris' case, I never realy got to know her, she never displayed any multiple type signs when I was actually in the same room, and the impression that I got was that it was a cry for help.
Anyway, as I said before, I wouldn't have a problem if she wasn't talking about it all the time. I don't have an interest in the mental issues of other people, except for a few friends, and thus am not interested in hers.

As for "using what I've said" against me, good luck. I've spent the last year and a half getting a hold on my issues, and think I've got a fairly good grasp on them. I know my flaws and weaknesses, and am striving to overcome them.

Re: *glee*

[elenbarathi.livejournal.com]

Well, that was my point - she probably needs to take a close look at how many of the people she may consider friends are actually only associates, and stop them telling them personal details they don't need or want to know.

See, still with the "MPD" thing - suppose you had a friend who was multiple but not MPD? There are a lot of us around, y'know - way more than you'd think, because we tend not to be "out" about it. It's even possible that you could fall in love with someone, hope to marry, and only then hear "There's something you need to know". Quite a few former skeptics lost their skepticism about multiplicity just that way.

I don't know what you mean by "never displayed any multiple-type signs" - exactly what do you imagine those "signs" to be? It's like saying someone doesn't "look gay" - what's "gay" supposed to look like? Do you think people who are different from 'the norm' in a way that carries such a heavy stigma don't learn to 'pass' as well as they possibly can?

There are friends I've known for 40 years, been housemates with, had sex with, even, who've never known that I'm only one of three. It's true my kid figured it out when she was six (and never said anything till she was 14) - it's very hard to keep secrets from one's children - but I think very few adults have even suspected. Doesn't it occur to you that your very skepticism would prevent you from noticing multiplicity even in a person you knew intimately? You don't believe in it, so you'd be unable to perceive it even in someone close to you - and knowing that you don't believe in it, someone close to you would probably not tell you.

I have no opinion as to whether Chris is multiple or not. If she is multiple, she needs to learn a lot more caution about who to trust. Same if she's not multiple and her behavior is, as you say, "a cry for help" - because crying for help to people who will kick her in the teeth for annoying them with her needs is not a real good idea.

*shrugs* Knowing your flaws and weaknesses is all very well, but that doesn't mean that someone you trusted with personal details couldn't betray you, and it also doesn't mean that you're never going to need help or forbearance yourself. If I saw a group of people I "associated with" treat someone the way your group's treated Chris, I'd certainly be asking myself whether continuing to associate with them was really such a great idea.

Re: *glee*

[cataragon.livejournal.com]

I know I keep harping on about this, but I really must object to this 'the group' nonsense. The social group in question is a conglomerate mass of more than 150 people, and as far as I can tell possibly a maximum of 5 or 6 have chosen to use LJ as a forum for their somewhat negative opinions. Some of us are doing our best to be understanding about your community, please try to grant us the same privilege.

You say yourself:
that was my point - she probably needs to take a close look at how many of the people she may consider friends are actually only associates, and stop them telling them personal details they don't need or want to know

I think possibly the point Binky was trying to make was that many of the people who only consider themselves associates of Chris are not unsympathetic, but would perhaps rather not be dragged into this rather personal aspect of her life. It can be very difficult when people you know, but not well, insist on sharing information that you are not comfortable with.

Re: *glee*

[cataragon.livejournal.com]

Sorry, something else just occured to me.

You write: "never displayed any multiple-type signs" - exactly what do you imagine those "signs" to be? It's like saying someone doesn't "look gay" - what's "gay" supposed to look like?

I imagine that the "signs" in question would be the behaviours witnessed at various times in Chris, who is really, the social groups only example of multiplicity. Apparently at times these behaviours (such as personality 'swapping' etc - sorry, I'm not up with the correct terminology) are apparent, I've never personally seen them in anything other than an online context.

Using your gay metaphor - I imagine gay is supposed to look like showing indications of a desire to have sex with people of the same gender. In this case "multiple" is supposed to look like showing indications of having, or believing you have, multiple persons or personalities.

Re: *glee*

[pengke.livejournal.com]

Her point is that multiples don't exactly wear signs advertising themselves. Sometimes you will be able to tell that there's something different about someone or if you're used to the idea of multiplicity, maybe you'll wonder if they're multiple, but usually people don't notice. Even when people do notice things, it's usually shrugged off because all people, multiple or not, are very inconsistent and can change moods/opinions/ect. rapidly. Plus, a lot of multiples work to make people think they're all one person.

The inconsistency can also make it hard to identify different people when you know that someone is multiple. Sometimes it's really obvious. Sometimes the differences are very subtle. Sometimes there isn't any outward difference and you'll only realize you're dealing with someone else when the person says or does something that the others wouldn't do. You can also get people who are very similar. It's similar to how sometimes close siblings or close friends can act just alike.

Because it's so hard to tell, sometimes people will go out of their way to behave different from the others. That's when you get things like people adopting accents or writing in slang/bad grammar or speaking in an artificially deep voice. To borrow the gay metaphor, it's similar to how some gay people will adopt very stereotypical, flamboyantly gay behaviors. Of course, people also do all of those things when they're faking too. That's why you have to get to know the person. Then you'll be able to tell if they're getting anything out of it or see if they fall out of character. You'll also be in a better position to pick up the subtle differences.

[duathir.livejournal.com]

Well-said. Certain people can tell us apart even when we are sitting quietly and saying nothing, though we do not know how they do it, and when asked they cannot explain. I find this somewhat uncanny, and am not entirely comfortable with it.

[duathir.livejournal.com]

But it is the same body; the genitalia does not change. Often the position does not change. There are people who can tell in the dark, when we are wrapped in a heavy, hooded winter cloak (we are in the SCA, so this is common attire for us) and making no gestures at all. There is no logical way they should be able to tell.

We have been told our eyes (which are hazel) change color, but I do not think they do, only that they appear different in different light. We have also been told our scent changes, our 'aura' changes, our 'mind-feel' changes - I do not know whether these changes are truly indicative, or whether they are coincidental, as I believe eye-color changes to be. I cannot myself see auras or feel 'mind-feel', so I am not in a position to evaluate any statements about them.

Re: *glee*

[cataragon.livejournal.com]

I am not entirely sure, but I believe in this case, the different people/personalities have very distinct and obvious behavioural differences. I believe what Binky was trying to say was that he had not experienced these obvious behavioral differences and therefore his only experience of her multiplicity was 'her talking about it all the time'.
He was sceptical, but had no objection to her leading her own life, or ahving her own choices apart from when they interacted negatively with him
He has at least been polite, and not insulting, as well as shown an interest in learning more.

For the record, I've withheld judgement. I simply do not know enough about multiplicity, DID/MPD or Chris to make any kind of judgement.
I'm still hanging around here because I find the conversation interesting.

I do find it a little hard to swallow that the same people here who are so vociferous about people being understanding about other people are the same ones bagging my entire social group based on very little indeed. But hey, thems the breaks.

Re: *glee*

[whispersong.livejournal.com]

well put. you've said things in a manner i think i could not have used/said, very likely because i am too passionate a person to be so calm when making the type of reply you've made. on this point, i think i can agree w/you, elenbarathi.

{J}tatiana

Re: *glee*

[elenbarathi.livejournal.com]

*smiles* Hey, thanks! LOL, actually I'm not the 'calm one' in debate; I tend to be a hot-head... fortunately, when writing I've got my faithful bro here pointing out every time I'm inaccurate or overly-inflammatory. Not that he's not pretty inflammatory himself when he gets in the mood; he's just a lot more subtle about it.

Re: *glee*

[whispersong.livejournal.com]

*smirks* Well at least you have one to metaphorically keep you in check. *giggles* I have no such person really and have gotten myself in more than one situation in debates that ended up being somewhat heated arguments. It happens.

Tatiana

Re: *glee*

[elenbarathi.livejournal.com]

*wry grin* Well, he tries, anyway. LOL, he's been trying since I was in nursery school and about to get myself in big trouble with a teacher by answering a question honestly but untactfully. "Do not say that", he told me, the first words I ever heard from him.

In the past 43 years he's said those words a bunch more times - sometimes I listen, sometimes I don't. He's usually right, though. For years he's disapproved of my online battles, but I notice that since he got online himself this year, he's had a few pretty good ones of his own. It's hard to avoid, I guess, the Net being what it is.

[duathir.livejournal.com]

I still disapprove, but you are right; sometimes it is hard to avoid.

[whispersong.livejournal.com]

yes sometimes it is hard to avoid I agree. Hehe don't worry, My Housemates sometimes disapprove of My words too. Least they don't try to censor Me though. :)

Tatiana