Jump to content

[non-aces only] Do you feel like your body is part of your identity? (poll)


mreid

Do you see your body as part of your identity?   

28 members have voted

  1. 1. Do you feel that your physical body doesn't match how you see yourself psychologically and/or are you non-cis?

    • Yes
      12
    • No
      16
  2. 2. You experience your dreams mostly...

    • In the 3rd person (but my body is the same as my waking one)
      3
    • In the 3rd person (but my body is different from my waking one/ partially different)
      2
    • In the 1st person (but my body is different/ partially different)
      2
    • In the 1st person (but I can't see my body/ don't know if it's different of not)
      12
    • In the 1st person (but my body is the same as my waking one)
      9
  3. 3. Your sexual fantasies are...

    • In the 1st person
      15
    • In the 3rd person and I participate in them
      5
    • In the 3rd person but I don't participate in them
      4
    • I don't have sexual fantasies / N/a
      4
  4. 4. Do you have low self-esteem / body image issues?

    • Yes
      6
    • Moderately so
      14
    • No/ very few
      8
  5. 5. Are you prone to dissociation and/ or depersonalization?

    • Yes to both
      7
    • Yes to dissociation
      3
    • Yes to depersonalization
      4
    • No to both
      14
  6. 6. Do you feel like you inhabit your body rather than see it as part of you? (from @Moon Spirit's thread, see OP)

    • Yes
      8
    • No
      20
  7. 7. Which of the following are accurate?

    • I self-harm
      8
    • My looks changed a lot over the years
      9
    • I was an ugly duckling
      7
    • Have trouble picturing myself/ parts of myself in my mind/ aphantasia-like symptoms
      3
    • None
      10
  8. 8. Do you have depression?

    • Yes
      18
    • No
      10
  9. 9. Do you feel like a part of who you are is being rejected if a partner doesn't feel attracted to your body?

    • Yes
      21
    • No
      7


Recommended Posts

I'll respond properly when I get the chance hopefully later today. I don't want to rush my response but have a house inspection in a couple of days so am only visiting AVEN quickly on my phone and typed some rushed phone responses. I'd rather respond on my comp as these questions are important to me because they're about the other half of our lives (the half that happens with our physical eyes closed). Just please no one get the thread locked before I can respond like what happened with the other thread, lol. :P:cake:

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, FictoCannibal. said:

Just please no one get the thread locked before I can respond like what happened with the other thread, lol. :P:cake:

Ha ha.

 

tyt

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest DesertWells
15 minutes ago, mreid said:

@DesertWells I met a guy who told me he dreamt in a similar way, he said that when he changed to the other body it felt to him like "wearing a mask". Do you feel the same way?

Possibly 🤔 like my consciousness jumping into his body. So yes, I guess mask would be appropriate.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@DesertWells So you are not exactly like Ficto, because you know where you are or there is something you identify as being you or controlled by you. In Ficto's case she is everywhere at the same time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@DesertWells And also you are only one person at one time, Ficto can be several at once. In your dream when you saw both the woman and the astronaut at the same time in 3rd person did you feel you controlled both at the same time, or only one at once?

Link to post
Share on other sites

It personally reminds me the "John Malkovich" movie 🤣; this is the story of someone who goes (by a weird and magic system) into strangers bodies, and he should accustom to. Long time I saw this movie so I hope my description is exact but it's the theme ^^

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest DesertWells
1 hour ago, mreid said:

@DesertWells So you are not exactly like Ficto, because you know where you are or there is something you identify as being you or controlled by you. In Ficto's case she is everywhere at the same time.

There are times when I’m like a fly-on-the-wall as I said before, as if I’m just a floating camera watching a movie. But when I was talking about 1st/3rd person POV, I wasn’t considering fly-on-the-wall as either, because I’m not attached to anyone’s perspective when that’s happening. In literary terms, you’d call it omniscient POV.

 

But yes, I am only ever one person at once, and I switch between them. Switching characters is fairly uncommon for me though, but I do switch POV a lot, even to omniscient.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, DesertWells said:

But when I was talking about 1st/3rd person POV, I wasn’t considering fly-on-the-wall as either, because I’m not attached to anyone’s perspective when that’s happening. In literary terms, you’d call it omniscient POV.

I think I have experienced that. @FictoCannibal. do you find this relatable?

 

@Serran I will reply to your post tomorrow, I have been quite busy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is probably going to derail this thread again, but I this just occurred to me:

 

If what creates that bond and trust of intimacy is making yourself vulnerable and seeing that the other person doesn't hurt you, then choosing someone to do it with who you are pretty sure won't hurt you seems pretty self-defeating, unless this bond comes from an "unknown" factor in that you can't be completely sure the other person won't hurt you. So this bond comes from seeing faith pay off and from a certain thrill.

 

However, what this implies is that unless the "unknown" factor / thrill is there, there is no bonding. So if you are with the same person for too long, or with someone you know too well or who doesn't intimidate you at all and you become pretty sure they won't hurt you, the unpredictability factor disappears and if intimacy is your most powerful way of bonding then you won't be able to bond anymore. Which implies that if someone else comes along who can provide that "thrill" the relationship can be replaced, because the existing bond is situational, so whoever can provide the experience can also provide the bond.

 

This reminds me of something the Red Pill guys/ PUAs complain about (I am just the messenger...) that they feel they need to keep a woman perpetually entertained and on her toes and never let her get to know them too well or she will get bored. Which is why they "spin plates". A lot of PUA strategy is about faking that "thrill" to trick women.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that’s true for some people in a way (they get bored easily and while it may not be that they can’t bond when bored whatever’s left isn’t enough), but I don’t think it’s women-specific (I’ve actually known more men like that than I have women) or universal.

 

If men are more likely to do it/have it happen, I suppose they could expect the same from women though.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@ryn2 I think you are referring to those men who lose interest when the woman seems to clingy, or who start "taking her for granted". I don't think this is more common in men than women, but I can't say for sure whether if there is equality in this aspect.

 

I can sort of understand the bonding of intimacy but as a secondary thing to a relationship and more of a confirmation of that bond rather than something that creates it. People who get bored I think do so because they see this kind of intimacy as the main force behind a relationship. It's a bonding through situations rather than things (things that reflect who the person is), and the situation itself is volatile but a person's identity isn't.

 

5 hours ago, ryn2 said:

If men are more likely to do it/have it happen, I suppose they could expect the same from women though.

What do you mean exactly?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mreid said:

1) I think you are referring to those men who lose interest when the woman seems to clingy, or who start "taking her for granted".

 

2) What do you mean exactly?

1) I meant tiring of/getting bored with the relationship in general, not necessarily being put off by clinginess.

 

2) Men (or women, for that matter, but I believe you were speaking of men) who get bored easily may assume the same is true for their partners... so they may be putting on a show not so much because their partners actually need one as because it’s what they would want done for them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@ryn2 in any case, isn't that an admission that a relationship based on that kind of bonding eventually destroys itself, at least on an emotional level?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mreid said:

@ryn2 in any case, isn't that an admission that a relationship based on that kind of bonding eventually destroys itself, at least on an emotional level?

No, I said getting bored easily can destroy relationships.  I specifically said it might not be related to bonding.

 

Your statement, though, could imply that bonding over situations doesn’t last... which seems to run counter to what you’ve said previously about how uniting over a common “enemy” or challenge is more real than other types of bonding. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, ryn2 said:

Your statement, though, could imply that bonding over situations doesn’t last... which seems to run counter to what you’ve said previously about how uniting over a common “enemy” or challenge is more real than other types of bonding. 

That can happen, but not necessarily. The difference is that this mutual cause has to be meaningful to both people individually as it represents a part of who they are, not because they both happen to be in the same situation. It's a subtle difference, but it's there. The key is that whatever they believe in has to represent them and has to be their own decision, not imposed on them.

 

For example, it is very common for nations to come up with a "common enemy" to unite their people for their own purposes. This is usually what happens with dogmatic beliefs, fanaticism, etc... and the people who believe such things usually do so because they are dissatisfied about who they are and want to "get lost in the crowd". It works similarly to sexual perversion.

As for the other types, you got for example the old greek philosophers. They valued reason and they didn't go out of their way to bother people, they just wanted to be left to contemplate their philosophical questions alone. The fanatics however, moved by demagogues, put an end to that. Another key difference between both types is that there is usually an ideology and the fanatics try to impose their ideology on others, the people who are like philosophers try to prevent having others impose their ideology on them.

 

So the main difference is that one type is the enemy of individualism, the other just wants to preserve their individualism. Both represent unity in homogeneity, only the latter is not imposed, it's natural. Does this make sense? They are respecting and preserving who they are and bonding over that, not bonding over giving up who they are.

 

It's the eternal struggle of humanity: the collectivists vs. the individualists, the herd vs. the individual.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed.  I don’t really see that as bonding over shared external experiences (e.g., serving together in wartime), though; more like “people with similar viewpoints will get along better than those with disparate ones.”

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/22/2018 at 1:45 AM, mreid said:

This is probably going to derail this thread again, but I this just occurred to me:

 

If what creates that bond and trust of intimacy is making yourself vulnerable and seeing that the other person doesn't hurt you, then choosing someone to do it with who you are pretty sure won't hurt you seems pretty self-defeating, unless this bond comes from an "unknown" factor in that you can't be completely sure the other person won't hurt you. So this bond comes from seeing faith pay off and from a certain thrill.

 

However, what this implies is that unless the "unknown" factor / thrill is there, there is no bonding. So if you are with the same person for too long, or with someone you know too well or who doesn't intimidate you at all and you become pretty sure they won't hurt you, the unpredictability factor disappears and if intimacy is your most powerful way of bonding then you won't be able to bond anymore. Which implies that if someone else comes along who can provide that "thrill" the relationship can be replaced, because the existing bond is situational, so whoever can provide the experience can also provide the bond.

 

This reminds me of something the Red Pill guys/ PUAs complain about (I am just the messenger...) that they feel they need to keep a woman perpetually entertained and on her toes and never let her get to know them too well or she will get bored. Which is why they "spin plates". A lot of PUA strategy is about faking that "thrill" to trick women.

You don't need to constantly recreate the bond - the bond once formed is there and you know you're safe with the person, if you are into kink or whatever it's still exciting and enjoyable to play pretend (like kids pretending to be princesses or whatever). But, the bond, the trust, forms from learning you are safe. Then the only real dangers are 1) Getting complacent and taking for granted that the person is always there for you (and thus not showing appreciation for it) or 2) Them damaging the bond by hurting you in some way

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/22/2018 at 6:45 PM, mreid said:

This is probably going to derail this thread again, but I this just occurred to me:

 

If what creates that bond and trust of intimacy is making yourself vulnerable and seeing that the other person doesn't hurt you, then choosing someone to do it with who you are pretty sure won't hurt you seems pretty self-defeating, unless this bond comes from an "unknown" factor in that you can't be completely sure the other person won't hurt you. So this bond comes from seeing faith pay off and from a certain thrill.

 

However, what this implies is that unless the "unknown" factor / thrill is there, there is no bonding. So if you are with the same person for too long, or with someone you know too well or who doesn't intimidate you at all and you become pretty sure they won't hurt you, the unpredictability factor disappears and if intimacy is your most powerful way of bonding then you won't be able to bond anymore. Which implies that if someone else comes along who can provide that "thrill" the relationship can be replaced, because the existing bond is situational, so whoever can provide the experience can also provide the bond.

 

This reminds me of something the Red Pill guys/ PUAs complain about (I am just the messenger...) that they feel they need to keep a woman perpetually entertained and on her toes and never let her get to know them too well or she will get bored. Which is why they "spin plates". A lot of PUA strategy is about faking that "thrill" to trick women.

You create the bond in the beginning (just like developing a friendship, which is what the bond is at the core of things). After that, everything you do just deepens your bond, or at the very least are things you enjoy as a result of it. Just picture two best friends, what their relationship is like: They tell each other secrets, do fun stuff together, enjoy each other's company, and even when they're doing nothing and there's just silence, they're still happy in each other's company. It's exactly like that, just with kink (something they both enjoy exploring) as an aspect of the fun they have together.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Only half way through reading the thread, just going to post my answers before I forget, lol.

 

1. Do you feel that your physical body doesn't match how you see yourself psychologically and/or are you non-cis?

Gender-questioning, and yes I feel like my physical self does not match how I see myself. I am also often confused by how other people see my physical self.

 

2. You experience your dreams mostly...

In the 3rd person with a body at least partially different than my waking one. I used to always be a completely different person, but that only happens sometimes now.

 

3. Your sexual fantasies are...

In the 3rd person and I participate in them.

 

4. Do you have low self-esteem / body image issues?

Not really, just a few.

 

5. Are you prone to dissociation and/ or depersonalization?

Yes to depersonalization.

 

 

6. Do you feel like you inhabit your body rather than see it as part of you?

Not really, no.

 

7. Which of the following are accurate?

I was an ugly duckling, lol.

 

8. Do you have depression?

Yep.

 

9. Do you feel like a part of who you are is being rejected if a partner doesn't feel attracted to your body?

Yes. Whichever part they are unattracted to is the part of me I end up feeling worst about.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/19/2018 at 9:27 AM, mreid said:

If someone has any kind of power over you, or you power over them, and your trust comes more from faith than reason, it kills honesty, which kills real trust, and this "trust" becomes a kind of bondage.

 

It doesn't matter whether they can change their mind or not, betray you or not. The fact that they refuse to even have that kind of power over you to begin with is where the trust comes from.

The reason IS honesty. The trust develops from either previous occasions where a person did as they honestly said or from faith in the person beforehand.

 

Person A pledges to keep Person B safe. Person A does this to the best of their ability. They were honest, and the more times they show this honestly the more likely they are to be honest later. Only lack of honesty and failure to practice safely would kill trust there.

 

Also, if you want someone to have power over you, their refusal to do it wouldn't necessarily foster trust. It could actually make them seem undependable and untrustworthy with your safety and their own.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Treesarepretty

Having a hard time with this poll because two of the questions are not clear to me.

 

Q1. I don't know what this means.

Q2. Option 2. Dreams usually go back and forth between 1st and 3rd person within the same dream like I'm a character in a movie that I'm also watching. Sometimes look like me, sometimes I'm another guy, sometimes a monster, and animal, a child, etc.

 

Q3. Option 1.

Q4. Option 1.

Q5. Option 1.

Q6. I don't know what this means, and reading  @Moon Demon ☽'s thread didn't clear up anything for me.

Q7. Option 1.

Q8. Option 1.

Q9. Option 1.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1. No. I don’t really have any feelings at all toward my genitals. They’re irrelevant to me. I hate my body but because it’s ugly, not wrong.

2. Wasn’t sure how to answer this. My dreams are always one of two ways: Third person where I’m someone other than myself - like watching a movie with a main character that I kind of am but I’m also not, as I know more than them. I’m like an omniscient puppet master and my favorite puppet is the main character of the dream. I’m usually not aware of existing at all in these. The main character can be a mean old lady, an angelic small boy, a space monster... There’s no relation to me in real life. OR my dream is first person but I can’t see my body. I can only see my hands if I use them in the dream. It’s like if you strap a camera to your head, that view is what I see in my first person dreams. So I don’t know if I look the same in those.

3. I honestly don’t have sexual fantasies. I know that’s a bit unusual for a sexual. I think a big part of why I thought I was asexual for so long was because I’m disgusted by my own body. I enjoy sex with my partner because I trust him but I don’t even like being naked. I can’t picture myself like that without feeling sick. And then it’s just weird to me to picture other people? 

4. I have no self esteem whatsoever and never have. No one could hate me more than I hate myself.

5. No to both.

6. No.

7. I was a duckling. Now I’m an ugly duck. I look exactly the same, just older and fatter.

8. Yes. I have major depressive disorder, among other things. I was in and out of therapy from ages 3-12. My therapists were all shit and made things worse so I refused to see one again until I was 16 or 17 and increasingly suicidal. I’ve been in therapy and on medication ever since, even 10 years later. I’ve made tons of progress but I still have a long way to go and will always have to work to maintain my mental stability.

9. Yes, probably. I’m sexual, in a sexual relationship, with a sexual. So that’s a non-issue. But I struggle enough believing he finds me remotely attractive and that causes a lot of distress. I wouldn’t have much issue with not having a sexual relationship but for this reason, my own mental illness would make it impossible for me to be with someone who is asexual.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...