I see it as a cycle—the abuser pushes until they see signs of hurt. They may abuse again because they feel like it, but if the abusee shows signs of feeling better, the abuser is very likely to start abusing again.
(Seeing that Nancy has replied herself, I worry that I’m mansplaining here, but …)
The idea, I think, is that it goes like this:
Abuse begins.
Abuser ratchets up level of abuse until victim is visibly hurt.
From victim’s perspective, what’s happening is that (abuse ratcheting up) correlates with (not feeling unbearably wretched yet).
Victim (or some bit of victim’s brain) draws the conclusion that feeling more wretched sooner is the way to stop the abuse ratcheting up.
There is no contradiction because Nancy didn’t say that “feeling happy … is precisely what draws more abuse” but that “a person who’s abused may … come to believe that … feeling happy … is precisely what draws more abuse”.
No problem with your explanation—you didn’t claim that you knew what I was saying better than I did and you basically got my point right.
You’ve pointed at something I may need to clarify.
I believe both that abusers will attack when their victim is feeling better, and that the victim may conclude (as an alief—all this stuff is very visceral) that it’s safer to not feel better. How pervasive the alief is (just when in the presence of the abuser? when around people who resemble the abuser? when the abuser is in their life? all the time?) varies a lot.
and that the victim may conclude (as an alief—all this stuff is very visceral) that it’s safer to not feel better.
Which is in fact accurate in the presence of an abuser looking to keep you down, alert to any sign of happiness, and ready to respond with abuse in turn.
It seems like you’re contradicting yourself there. Would you mind clarifying?
I see it as a cycle—the abuser pushes until they see signs of hurt. They may abuse again because they feel like it, but if the abusee shows signs of feeling better, the abuser is very likely to start abusing again.
(Seeing that Nancy has replied herself, I worry that I’m mansplaining here, but …)
The idea, I think, is that it goes like this:
Abuse begins.
Abuser ratchets up level of abuse until victim is visibly hurt.
From victim’s perspective, what’s happening is that (abuse ratcheting up) correlates with (not feeling unbearably wretched yet).
Victim (or some bit of victim’s brain) draws the conclusion that feeling more wretched sooner is the way to stop the abuse ratcheting up.
There is no contradiction because Nancy didn’t say that “feeling happy … is precisely what draws more abuse” but that “a person who’s abused may … come to believe that … feeling happy … is precisely what draws more abuse”.
No problem with your explanation—you didn’t claim that you knew what I was saying better than I did and you basically got my point right.
You’ve pointed at something I may need to clarify.
I believe both that abusers will attack when their victim is feeling better, and that the victim may conclude (as an alief—all this stuff is very visceral) that it’s safer to not feel better. How pervasive the alief is (just when in the presence of the abuser? when around people who resemble the abuser? when the abuser is in their life? all the time?) varies a lot.
Which is in fact accurate in the presence of an abuser looking to keep you down, alert to any sign of happiness, and ready to respond with abuse in turn.