Dear weepingdragon719:

I am sorry you were locked away and mistreated so much. It is a great shame. Love is indeed rare and cruelty is common. This is reality and it is so very unfortunate that you had so much of this reality in your life.

I would like to attempt to answer your question: ” Monsters can find someone who will love them so why can’t I?”

First, I’ll go over your own answer to your question: “I’d like to think I’m far more likable than someone who abuses their partners or treats other people like trash. But apparently I’m not more desirable than people like that. Whatever inherent value those people have that make them lovable I lack.”

You point to your observation that a monster, like a person who abuses his/ her partner and treats people like trash is likable. I challenge that. Such a person’s children will automatically love him, as children automatically love their parent no matter who the parent is. This is because a child is so needy of the parent, that the child, like the young of other mammals… birds, will automatically follow the parent no matter who the parent is and where the parent is leading the child.

The partner of such a person who stays with such and trying to please the abusive person does so because she (the partner) is still stuck in the same dynamic of the child I mentioned above: she was abused herself by a parent and … is confusing (to put it in a simplified way) the partner for a parent.

The monster in this example was born lovable but has become cruel. The child and the partner in the example were born lovable but don’t know it. These two are still trying to get water-out-of-a-rock, love out of a cruel person, an angry person whose motivation is to hurt them.

Back to your question: “Monsters can find someone who will love them so why can’t I?” –

Monsters don’t find people who love them. They find people who will try again and again… and again to make the monster be loving, to get water out of a rock. So the first part of your sentence is incorrect. The second part depends therefore on an incorrect assumption.

Your thoughts?

anita