not necessarily so..

[ghost]

there's a couple of things i've heard so many times that i as an ad person just don't think are necessarily so.. and i wonder what others here think?

when dealing with addictions, eating disorders, self-injury..
how many times have i heard that you need to 'hit bottom' before you can get better? i don't think that's necessarily so..
i just don't think that's a good message to put out there..
i think people can get themselves back on track without having to make the mistake of waiting till they've lost everything dear to them.. especially if they have support and hear accounts of what's down the road from others dealing with the same problems..
personally i come from a family of alcoholics and have gone in and out of 'problem drinking' since starting as a kid.. quit several times.. once for like 13 years? i don't know for certain whether i am an alcoholic or not.. i just know it has gotten bad enough to do damage to my health and i've been forced to stop.. i still have strong urges.. but i don't necessarily think it would be wise for me to assume i'm not until it becomes apparent i am and it's too late, you know?

with my eating disorder i ran the risk of killing myself off at one point but with help i edged myself back into a healthier place an inch at a time after years of starvation and associated health problems.. i still deal with this every day.. but i never did go into a hospital because i wouldn't leave my kitties and guys..
which brings me to my second point:

how many times have i heard that when it comes to recovery (from said addiction/self-destructive problem..) that you 'have to do it for you.. not for anyone else..'? that's not necessarily so either, in my opinion.. and i wonder if this is perhaps a manifestation of attachment issues that others would understand.. because if i'd had to do it for me, i'd be dead.. even to this day i cannot bring motivation enough out of the crater of not caring enough about/for myself to do it.. it had to be for my son.. for my kitties.. for my marriage.. even for my therapist if it meant anything at all to her.. it had to be for someone else.. then i just care enough to make headway.. is this ad?

if i had to base my efforts to recover on caring about myself.. doing it for myself.. i'd be cutting today.. and drinking and starving despite the consequences..

i say we latch onto whatever works for us..
if no one else understands that i am here for my cats.. that's ok.. but that's what keeps me going.. that's my connection.. swear to god..

ghost

119 days no s.i.
477 days no alcohol

[emma]

I have also wondered about the idea that you don't begin recovery until you "hit bottom". First, I know people who have given up addictions before they have ruined thier lives. They just recognized that they had a problem and stopped. Some with AA others without. If I had to wait til I hit bottom, then I would never deal with my drug problems, because I am very high (ha, ha, get it?) functioning and could stay that way forever. No, I won't 'hit bottom" but I do hope this: That thru my own personal work I will alleviate the chronic emotions that drive me to drugs. I agree with you ghost that the "hitting bottom" message is a bad one to put out there. At times when I have felt really bad and turned to alcohol to comfort me I would think to myself "well, here's to the trip down" as if I had PERMISSION to make myself worse as if it were NECESSARY to get worse before I could begin to get better. Stoopid!

As far as doing it for someone esle...I don't know. K has suggested that I do it for Paul, but I feel like that is not going to work. I feel like the trick is to come to terms with myself and if I can do that then I can be better to other people (which is a goal - to love other people better). So maybe I just contradicted myself. Hmmm...lets see. I want to love other people better. I assume this means letting go of addictions. But to let go of addictions, for me, is a solitary thing - not driven by my desire to please another. So what am I saying?

[ghost]

i think many of us find it so much easier to do things for others than for ourselves.. like for myself.. i couldn't get a feeling of caring about myself.. i'd be in the grave before i had that 'aha' moment.. but if you can care about those who need you or who are hurt by your actions.. that's good motivation..
if you can do it for yourself then that's ideal.. that's the real deal.. it's actual health and functionality..
i guess i've just had to ascribe to a kind of survivor's version of health.. anything that works is good enough?

i know some ad people won't have this same motivation for others if they are the dismissive type.. if they are too disconnected from others.. i think health for us (ad folk) is whenever we are able to develop a bond with human or animal that lasts and gives us meaning.. or reason to care at all..
it could even be god or a 'higher' purpose or calling.. a dead relative.. the attachment in itself whatever form gives us hope.. or holds it out in front of us.. giving us motivation..

did i even make sense?

[kerryclaire]

I don't think you have to hit rock bottom before you get better either, and I think plenty of people are living proof of that. I do however think that you have to "do it for yourself, not for anyone else". I interpret this slightly differently though, in the sense that if your doing it for your family or friends etc then you're also doing it for yourself because its for a cause that *you* care about. Whereas I always considered "doing it for someone else" to mean when someone else was forcing you, in which case the minute they're off guard it's extremely easy to slip back to old habits. Just my two cents (:

Congratulations on going so long without si and alcohol, thats fantastic!