perhaps you could try giving some of those women you meet a little more of an opportunity to impress you with some sincerity on their part or just a wee smidge more benefit of the doubt before you quickly rule them out as being completely otherwise?
I am not looking to be impressed with sincerity
. As I wrote in the initial post here:
I'm looking for women who, like me, feel any sort of deception (even subtle stuff, like subtle disconnect between words and actions, use of words for anything other than stark accuracy of description, etc) as wrongness/pain. Viscerally.
Ramona, you are applying your own landscape, experiences, and positioning to something that is outside all of these things. You don't understand. You are speaking from the landscape of someone like you who doesn't have this sense-perception. It doesn't fit what I am saying.
Of course, you initially wrote you were trying to understand my post better. Presumably, though you didn't say it out loud, so you could actually address what I was asking for help with (the purpose of my post).
Well, I questioned your word-description of what you were doing. I did this both as a way to answer your questions through firsthand interaction and experience, and also because something felt sort of off to me about your word-description, as I mentioned. It's getting clearer to me what was/is wrong.
In the first part of your reply to my questioning, you chose to defend yourself in ways that re-frame what I was saying in terms that are familiar and understandable to you. This is not the action of seeking better understanding. It is the action of placing an unknown and alien thing into familiar terms. The energy of this was there in your first reply, but not so so clearly as it is in the second one.
Your landscape has no categories for what I am talking about and you don't understand what I'm talking about. This is true. But you actions in response reveal your boundaries opposed to understanding this thing that different enough from your landscape that it would require you require you to stretch your own perception to include something that doesn't fit. You act to re-center your own understanding rather than to understand something outside of it.
Your description of your action as "trying to understand [my initial post] better" was not what the action was. This was not as clear before you were pushed by my response. But the problem I have with something like this is that the backlash is ugly and painful.
Speaking of backlash, I think your own response has done a far better job than I ever could of showing some of what I mean by backlash. To be clear, backlash is additional and often somewhat escalated flow of deception in response.
I wonder if you have a sensitivity to this issue that's now leading you to perceive double entendres or hidden meanings that only exist for you, not the other person.
Predictable. A sense in someone different from yourself, something that you don't have and don't understand is ... sensitivity that is other than perception of what is actually going on. And yes, I already mentioned this type of response as an example of backlash. Just predictable.
if they were really upsetting, I could imagine you might even have a "deception PTSD," where you're fully expecting many more to jump out at you, constantly. This could probably impair your interactions with those other women you may be meeting.
In this example of backlash in action, you name my experiences from a sense-perception you don't understand as not just different but as negatively deviant-- making a psychological diagnosis to underscore the negative deviance (in your landscape) of how I experience.
No, I'm not trying to say you should make this concern "less central" for you, but...
Sentences that say "I am not doing X, but" and go on to do exactly what the person says they are not doing? Culturally typical kind of backlash in a system permeated with deception. Something like: "Attend to what I say I am (not) doing rather than what I am doing. I can use word-claims to pre-emptively erase the doing with the claim I am not doing it."
No, I'm not trying to say you should make this concern "less central" for you, but perhaps you could try giving some of those women you meet a little more of an opportunity to impress you with some sincerity on their part or just a wee smidge more benefit of the doubt before you quickly rule them out as being completely otherwise?
This part bears repeating IMO. This is you defining things in terms that make sense to YOU from your position outside of what I am talking about. Writing as if who I am looking for would make sense in your landscape.
To repeat from above, I am not simply seeking someone who will be sincere. As I mentioned above. And I am certainly not looking for someone seeking to "impress"
me with her sincerity through me giving her "benefit of the doubt" -- yuck!
Instead, I am seeking someone who perceives what is around her similarly to me in this area that you don't understand. There is a difference.
Sentences that say "I am not doing X, but" and go on to do exactly what the person says they are not doing? Culturally typical kind of backlash in a system permeated with deception. Something like: "Attend to what I say I am (not) doing rather than what I am doing. I can erase the doing with the claim I am not doing it."
Maybe a few more of those other women than you may have originally imagined are more like you than you think but . . . they're just trying to get along conversationally in the world too, introducing themselves in the ways that seem accepted or normal, with the hope of a good response.
Here, you are falsely positioning yourself as an ally of and even, implicitly, sort of an expert on these "other women." To the point where you fele it is reasonable to give me advice about my own kind -- when you don't even understand my own kind. You faux-advocate for those you use words to name as like me. When you don't understand anything about this.
And for the record: If called out by one of her own
on efforts to pass, a woman like me would not respond with backlash as you have so thoughtfully displayed in action here. We don't seek benefit of the doubt -- that's a common but alien-to-me concept used in this cultural system to mask certain kinds of deception/dissonance by diverting attention away from actions onto something else.
Instead, she would respond from a sense-perception that dissonance is pain, that naming and opening up the wrongness -- in a way that doesn't put anyone in danger, there's context to be considered -- feels so much better than hiding it. Seriously.
Yes, there is a whole mode of perception you don't understand, that you simply can't define within your own familiar landscape of perception and experience.
Yes, "understanding" was related to your actions. But your real displayed action was about the inverse of understanding. You acted to define something outside your experience in your own terms, not to understand something outside of your familiar landscape. Same arena but totally different positions. Not as someone trying to understand, but as a definer of terms and landscapes for something that is outside your experience and perception.
Your actions are opposed to how you described them. That's the wrongness I felt initially. It wasn't clear then. It's clearer now.
Dealing with deception and backlash like this takes a lot of time and energy, not only to respond to it or not, but to experience in the first place. This kind of interaction illustrates some of what I am NOT looking for in another woman (not that you were offering, Ramona, just talking about this as illustration of dynamics), and shows some of why I don't want to be with someone who doesn't have this basic sense-perception I have.