Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Conversation >

How you murdered your family means nothing to me

@ BOD aka Cave Painter

06:34 / 21.02.02

"How you murdered your family
means nothing to me
as your mouth moves across my body"

That's the first line of a Leonard Cohen poem called "Letter."

(don't you just love a poet who writes poems called "One of the nights I didn't kill myself" ?)

but back to the subject, why do some women like dangerous men?

@ BOD aka Cave Painter

06:37 / 21.02.02

correction: why are some people attracted to dangerous people?

Morlock - groupie for hire

10:01 / 21.02.02

Power, why else.

Less searchable M0rd4nt

10:02 / 21.02.02

Why are peple attracted to dangerous anything?

10:08 / 21.02.02

Call me when you start talking about razorblades, ok?

10:19 / 21.02.02

Eroticised transference from earlier (possibly infantile/childhood) relationships. Mainly.

10:26 / 21.02.02

Because dangerous people make me feel alive.

10:42 / 21.02.02

this one reminds me of my favorite lie/myth - "nice guys finish last". heres the thing: no one wants to be bored. someone outside of the relationship might see it as "she/he likes danger/jerks" when really its simple fun going on. sometimes complicated by actual danger or jerkiness, but there you go

and Im rambling. no sleepy-sleepy

Less searchable M0rd4nt

10:49 / 21.02.02

Not sure all people in r/ships with a dangerous partener were actually attracted by the danger. Just because someone's dangerous (emotionally or physically) it doesn't mean they aren't also personable, charming, and fun to be with. Once you're in a relationship it's easy to kid yourself; explain away acts of violence and cruelty, convince yourself that the person has changed or will change. I know this doesn't explain things like people who marry murderers on death row, but I reckon it's true in a lot of cases.

odd jest on horn

10:52 / 21.02.02

Freu.. i mean Ganesh, you're joking, surely?

10:56 / 21.02.02

Dunno that that's Freud, specifically (although I think he came up with the whole 'transference' deal, didn't he?) but no, I wasn't joking.

Overstating the point, perhaps, but not joking.

10:56 / 21.02.02

There's also a far more insidious side to this. What about when a person isn't stereotypically dangerous? What about a person who could be dangerous in different ways? Philosophically, sexually? Are we talking about the stereotype of a dangerous individual (whatever that may be), or the other person's idea of what makes that person dangerous?

Or is that completely moot?

Waaaitaminnit! This is not the Head Shop....

Zoom.

10:59 / 21.02.02

Actually, this ties into 'dangerous relationships' in general. May work this up into a Head Shop topic...

odd jest on horn

11:06 / 21.02.02

well you're the psychiatrist.

it just strikes me as so completely unscientific (as in not disprovable). is there some good research on this?

and i'd really want to know what it was in my childhood that made me the bi sub i am

and what in your childhood made you gay? or were you specifically talking about dangerous and/or abusive relationships?

11:07 / 21.02.02

I've heard from three different women that dangerous men are better in bed. Subjective as hell, of course, but there might be some truth to it. Confidence, experience, a touch of deviance.

Of course, the whole subject became hilarious to me when a woman I was dating said she was initially attracted to me because she thought I was dangerous. I just about laughed up a lung at that.

Less searchable M0rd4nt

11:44 / 21.02.02

<Puts on PVC trenchie and pulls "dangerous" face at the board>

Less searchable M0rd4nt

11:59 / 21.02.02

<Strikes assortment of photogenic dangerous poses>

12:22 / 21.02.02

So what makes somebody dangerous, as opposed to someone who, as gridley suggested, is just confident, experienced, and slightly deviant?

When person A calls person B "dangerous", doesn't that suggest person B has faith or experience in an area person A is ignorant in, somewhat rendering person A the more dangerous one in that regard?

Zoom is right, there is a more insidious side to calling people dangerous, and it's a vicous cycle. When something is labelled dangerous, concern for it's welfare becomes less important. So, an improperly labelled "dangerous" person, (who is still, even if/when dangerous, a person with feelings needs, ideas, etc) gets discounted and trod on, pissed off, and more likely to act in "dangerous" fashions.

When you play with fire, and get burned, don't blame the fire.

We're The Great Old Ones Now

13:44 / 21.02.02

Uh...fire doesn't have a choice about what it burns. People do.

Speaking as an occasional cad.

13:51 / 21.02.02

But Nick, people also have a choice whether to get burned or not.

Have I mentioned how attractive you suddenly seem to me?

13:59 / 21.02.02

quote:Originally posted by Nick:
Uh...fire doesn't have a choice about what it burns. People do.

Speaking as an occasional cad.

Fire burns those things that get too close to it without proper resistance/protection, and the same is often true for people. I'd suggest that 7 times out of 10, the person who is emotionally hurt by a "dangerous" person, was hurt because they got in the path of an energy that intrigued them but that they weren't prepared for; much like the moth spiralling towards the flame. The fire, and the dangerous person, in this case, were doing what they know how to. The only real danger posed by most "dangerous people" is to the consciousness of the people who label them so.

And sometimes fire can feel a little reluctant in it's duties, speaking as a frequent cad.

14:16 / 21.02.02

going along with what floats is saying, it also comes of going into something with your own agenda, regardless of what the other person had in mind. if you think you are going to change a person with sheer want - well, Id say you are the one who is dangerous. in a stupid kinda way

Less searchable M0rd4nt

14:54 / 21.02.02

bk has a point. I've had ppl who were freinds try and forge a relationship with me... only it wasn't actually me, it was some character they'd cooked up in their heads. Then, when I wouldn't conform to the artificial construct they'd made for me (usually a stereotypical ultra-femme-sub goth-chick), they'd behave like I was being spiteful. Am I dangerous? Well, their pain was real enough, but I don't reckon I caused it.

15:21 / 21.02.02

quote:Originally posted by Mordant C@rnival:
I've had ppl who were freinds try and forge a relationship with me... only it wasn't actually me, it was some character they'd cooked up in their heads. Then, when I wouldn't conform to the artificial construct they'd made for me (usually a stereotypical ultra-femme-sub goth-chick), they'd behave like I was being spiteful.

Thanks MC. Seriously, I've never been able to relate that kind of experience to anyone and feel they understood what I was saying.

This happens frequently in my relationships, romantic, platonic, business and otherwise. People have a construct of me, often quite archetypical, and any deviance in my behavior from the patterns associated with their construct is just unacceptable.

Personally, people make me their Nemesis. Every attempt will be made to render me incorrect or foolish looking, contradicting me purely to be arbitrary, and I am assumed to have an ulterior motive or rakish intent in everything I do. Yet, these exact same people will approach me for advice when in a particularly difficult quandary, as if I put them there, and therefore the only one with the cognition to help.

I've grown a bit tired of this pattern, but haven't found my way out.

So, what's your archetype? Who are you to others when you're not who you are? I'll elaborate on my own later.

Less searchable M0rd4nt

16:12 / 21.02.02

quote:Originally posted by Floats With Spider:
So, what's your archetype? Who are you to others when you're not who you are? I'll elaborate on my own later.

I think this is in need of its own thread.

16:52 / 21.02.02

quote:Originally posted by odd jest on horn:
it just strikes me as so completely unscientific (as in not disprovable). is there some good research on this?

Well, anything involving accurate/specific recollection of childhood events is gonna be near-impossible to research so no, it's more of a theoretical framework that's useful within psychotherapy. Sometimes repeating patterns are fairly evident: abusive fathers not infrequently lead to eroticisation of powerful male authority figures, etc., etc. I suspect our erotic fetishes (and I wasn't specifically thinking of sexual orientation here) become 'fixed' quite early on. But that's really just my opinion based on my own experiences and those of people I've talked to about this.

[ 21-02-2002: Message edited by: Ganesh v4.2 ]