I chose to call myself Mercury for a reason

[mercuryisme.livejournal.com]

Hey, everyone...

From the user info page I thought I'd announce my presence here as a psych student, but I'm not interested in you people as guinea pigs... I have a seriously unorthodox fetish for the "crazies"... schizofrenia, multiples, furries, gender dysphoria... the people who don't belong, who feel out of place in their own skin, who are too much for themselves.

I wish I could live a thousand different lives sometimes, be the virgin and the whore and the child and the adult, the man and the woman. Being bisexual definitely raised some questions in my mind about whether or not I really wanted this female body of mine.

Don't be offended when I say part of me is jealous. But I guess you'd understand about "parts"... wouldn't you?

EDIT: I don't fetishize any of you, I have a tendency to use words offhand, I don't think about any of you or your friends naked in the shower to get my rocks off, I'm young, I'm dumb, I talk a lot, I would never in a million years dare to compare any of you to furries, or try to pretend any of you are anything like me, because that would be damn insulting, etc.

There.

Comments

[effrenata.livejournal.com]

Hi, Mercuryisme. I think you and I have some things in common. I too have a love for the strange, unusual, & deviant, & I think it's perfectly fine to seek out these aspects of life. I've always considered myself one of "the people who don't belong", and been proud of it. I am not multiple per se, but I am "plural" -- that is, I have "parts" so to speak, although they prefer to be called thoughtforms.

Fetishism doesn't bother me, either. I think it's one of those interesting kinks of life. Hmm... I wonder if anyone has ever had a fetish for fetishism? I would be delighted if someone fetishized my oddities, since I've worked so hard developing and nurturing them. I think it's different, however, for those who did not choose their differences. People who are "just born" a certain way often try hard to fit in & be normal, whereas those who seek to go beyond the edges have the opposite point of view. Rather ironic, isn't it?

If you are "jealous" of plurality, why don't you try making thoughtforms of your own? (Or "parts", "aspects", "subpersonalities", "imaginary friends", etc. depending on what you want to call them.) Give each aspect of yourself a name and identity, & imagine what they would say and do. Over time, they will become more detailed, complex and individual. I can help you do this if you are interested.

One of This Party's slogans: "Don't get jealous, get your own."

I'd like to talk with you on IM. Unfortunately, I've mainly been on during the nights recently, although I've been trying to shift my schedule over to the day. What times are you usually around?

[mercuryisme.livejournal.com]

If you are "jealous" of plurality, why don't you try making thoughtforms of your own?

I don't know why I have a problem with this idea, but I don't think it would work for me. It interests me but I think it would be like taking 1 step forward and 2 steps back.

What you're talking about sounds like RPing. <-- I'm sure that comment will piss off at least a couple people in here, lol.

I love IMing and talking one on one, so I can try to accomodate your schedule... Today I was around nearly the whole day, but my schedule changes often, and in a few weeks I'll be starting college so I have no idea how that will eat into the time I formerly devoted to being nerdy.

[effrenata.livejournal.com]

What you're talking about sounds like RPing. <-- I'm sure that comment will piss off at least a couple people in here, lol.

Thoughtforms are different than multiplicity. Thoughtforms are identities or characters that are consciously constructed by the host, whereas multiples regard the people in their systems as completely independent individuals, who may or may not have a common origin. (I'll note that most books on multiplicity, published by the medical profession or popular writers, interpret "multiple personalities" as parts of a single person. This is not the view you'll find in this community, though.)

Now, for me, my experience with thoughtforms is somewhat like RPing. I step into different identities and take on their points of view. It is not roleplaying for entertainment, however, but to experience and express different aspects of my/our whole being.

There are both "light" and "serious" forms of roleplaying, in other words. In fact, in some religious and spiritual traditions, roleplaying is used to draw on higher powers or to identify oneself with a spiritual being. In Hindu Tantra meditation, for instance, a person might recite a mantra like "I am Shakti" and imagine hirself as the goddess Shakti. Hinduism is a nondual tradition -- that is, the division between self and other is regarded as arbitrary, so one can take on other identities deliberately. Similar practices are found in Wicca, Ceremonial Magick, etc.

If you don't feel this is appropriate for you, of course, that's fine. I'm curious, though -- why would you consider it "taking 1 step forward and 2 steps back"?

[mercuryisme.livejournal.com]

Wow. That's extremely interesting. I must take a class on world religions someday- though I doubt they'd teach me as much about paganism and Wicca as I'd like to know. I'll look it up sometime soon.

I don't consider most defense mechanisms to be healthy mentally. Trying to deviate my personality into different thought forms could help me in a lot of ways that I can see, but I'd end up using it to escape. It'd be another vice eventually (I think)... and I've had a lot of vices already.

It's odd though, thinking about it... I think it would be easy to do... Completely natural. That fact makes me feel kind of uneasy for reasons I'm still trying to figure out.

[effrenata.livejournal.com]

I don't regard my thoughtforms as a "defense mechanism", but more in terms of "creative self-development and self-expression." There is, I will admit, some degree of defense involved -- for instance, I sometimes let Anomia field personal attacks because she doesn't give a damn what anyone thinks -- but that is not the primary aspect.

Right now, my thoughtforms are helping to keep me sane & stable, since we're reaching a balance in which the opposites are finally beginning to cooperate with each other. In the past, I've experienced bipolar swings as I allowed one aspect or another to gain control. I don't think having thoughtforms causes negative personality traits to manifest, however, but rather that if the problems are already there, they may be expressed though that form. There are some psychological techniques which use interactions between inner "parts" to work problems out; for example, Inner Voice Dialogue, NLP, and Psychosynthesis.

If you would like to see an interesting example of someone else who "went plural", check out the blogger "Lucinda, et. al.", on h2g2: http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/U129960 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/U129960). Their essay "My Multiplicity" explains how the process got started for them: http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A625123 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A625123).

[mercuryisme.livejournal.com]

Well, I tend to take things that can be good and put a nasty spin on them at times...

How would something like this work in reverse. The situation doesn't work for me, can I just go back, magically?

This might be something to look into later in life, but having just come out of puberty maybe it would be better to deal with just Laura right now. *hugs self*

[effrenata.livejournal.com]

How would something like this work in reverse. The situation doesn't work for me, can I just go back, magically?

It would depend on the individual case. Some multiple/plural systems can never integrate, some can. I think I could, if I wished to, but I would regard it as a loss rather than a gain.

This might be something to look into later in life, but having just come out of puberty maybe it would be better to deal with just Laura right now. *hugs self*

That may be a wise choice, then. Get to know what you want first, before you begin building it.

[ex-senza6.livejournal.com]

... wow, that page is fascinating. Thanks for the link. *bookmarks*

C.

[effeteifrit.livejournal.com]

I think it's different, however, for those who did not choose their differences. People who are "just born" a certain way often try hard to fit in & be normal, whereas those who seek to go beyond the edges have the opposite point of view.

I should just shut up, but I don't really "try" to be normal, if the above was a reference to me. Actually, that's not entirely true. My system's been going through an upheaval after trying to blend in as a woman. I'm bizarre to the point that there's no going back; I'm lucky if I'm treated as human and not as [insert identity/epithet/social station here], though it got a lot better after I went urban again.

Persons who are "just born" a certain way, if you listen to ethnic studies and womens' studies classes, lack something called "privilege", which I'm not up to elucidating at the moment. It's a controversial subject, because the term gets thrown around a lot as a weapon: "well, I'm more oppressed than you (read: 'you have more privilege than I'), so you should do/be/say/not say/not do/not be _X_."

I should say that my relationship with ethnic and womens' studies classes is often tense.

My point is that (if we're going to adopt this model, this is not to say that we should, as it's quite angering), everyone on this community who is plural and *did not choose to be* has a lower power status than the OP, and I perceive the OP's stance as exploitative in light of this. You may not find the same issue to affect you if you are plural by choice--if you "seek to go beyond the edges" and wish recognition for it. This is an alternative to the thesis that I try to blend in/minimize my minority aspects because I'm a minority by birth.

I don't know that I should post this, and I don't want the OP to delete this thread because I said this (after all, I view this exchange as potentially constructive), but it clarifies my position. If you were commenting on me, this is my response. If you weren't, well, you got me thinking. :)

[sethrenn.livejournal.com]

You may not find the same issue to affect you if you are plural by choice--if you "seek to go beyond the edges" and wish recognition for it. This is an alternative to the thesis that I try to blend in/minimize my minority aspects because I'm a minority by birth.

There are also those who believe those who are minorities by nature should try to emphasize their identity in a meaningful way, and show pride in it, rather than downplaying it-- to take back your identity after the dominant culture made you feel shame at being what you were. That's what the Autistic Pride movement is about, partly. There are or have been similar movements among a lot of religious/ethnic/sexual minorities.

(I do, for the record, believe there should also be such a thing as multiple pride-- regardless of origin-- although I believe it should take the form of things like saying "we" in places where you can and no one will put you in the loony bin for it, of not associating with friends who don't accept plurality, rather than of acting out in public to prove that you're different people and so on. Subtlety.)

[effrenata.livejournal.com]

I was commenting on all the people in general who reacted negatively to the OP's enthusiasm and interest. But, thank you for clarifying. This does make sense -- I've been thinking about the "privilege" issue recently, from viewing some discussions on other boards. I can see the point to both sides. It's a rather different situation for those who are by nature excluded from the "average" (whatever the "average" happens currently to be) and those who adopt an alternative way of life out of preference. Both are equally outside the mainstream, but they've reached that position from different routes.

Do you see yourself as having actually less power than the OP? If so, in what context? I would think that, on a board devoted to Multiplicity, multiples would have the position of power, insofar as that is the main focus and the basic paradigm of the community. It doesn't seem to me that a random newbie poster has more authority here than established members -- yet, "power" is a tricky thing, as it depends very much on the context and contexts are ever-shifting.

[mercuryisme.livejournal.com]

I think this is probably an important enough topic to take out into the open rather than keeping it in the comments of my stupid little post.

Besides, if you make it into a new thread, it won't email me EVERY SINGLE REPLY.

Lol. Help me out here. I am interested, but tired of getting email alerts.

[effeteifrit.livejournal.com]

In the physical world I wouldn't consider this person to have power over me, at least not currently, because of our age and experience/educational differential*; I'm still about a fifth older than her. However, in the long run, I feel it's likely that she would have more power, not in the least because she's going into the mental health industry. I'm not anti-psychiatry, but I wouldn't want this person treating me.

On this board, I feel that space for multiples has been maintained to an extent, and I feel it's been maintained through dialogue. I feel that if I (and others) didn't say anything, that space would be threatened. This is really one of the few spaces on the 'net where I can come and talk about things pertaining to multiplicity and not get some blank stare.

I don't think I would want the community to be closed, but it's not okay for someone to come into the community and say "hello, I fetishize you". For me, that is not respectful. That's not respectful of who I am as a person, it objectifies me, and if I'm watching, I'm not going to let it slide. (I shouldn't be so quick to pick up that mantle; my heat may be tempered in the near future.)

Power is always temporary, and it has to be maintained. I would not say that this person has more authority than myself, but then I would not say I had more authority than her. If I thought I had more authority than her, I would not have replied when she called me "pissy". However, I interpreted her response as an attempt to wield power over me in my own community ("well, if you don't do what I want [i.e. desire to be my 'friend'], you're a loser anyway"), and I interpreted that to show a lack of respect for who and what I am. Lack of respect can go hand in hand with fetishization. She even stated that a fetish often involved a sense of disgust.

I am *not* convinced that this person has a respect for multiples in general, because if she had it, then what generated her acerbic response? "I'm here, but I don't trust you yet" does not imply "I hate you, get out", but she responded as though that is what I had said.

And I think at this point, I'm done.

--Blaze

*I usually try not to be ageist, but in some cases I just can't ignore someone else's maturity level, and in some cases, that maturity level is pretty near someone's age. I know I'm still in the 'pretty young' phase of 'young adult' at 23; I'm young enough to know that high schoolers are (or try to be) cruel, and old enough to know that I don't know everything.