Loved/Hated, Am/Am Not

[Skater Boy]

I have a question to pose to you all, if I may be so bold. My question was inspired by the old adage:

“I would rather be hated for what I am, than to be loved for what I am not”.

What I would like to ask you is whether you agree or disagree with this statement, and why.

Now, before answering me, I feel obliged to present to you an example which may, or may not, promote a deeper level of thought on this topic:

My example is that I have come across plenty of people in my life who, whilst being themselves (ie. honestly open about who they are) happen to possess some distinctly unpleasant and anti-social personality traits. Now, to be honest, on some of those occasions I did actually wish that the person/s concerned would NOT actually be themselves, and would make an effort to ADJUST their behavior. The reasons being, that hating them (if that is what I felt) is counter-productive and a waste of mental energy, and that, to put it simply, there is much to be said for a pleasant temperament, good manners, civility and diplomacy.

Some such mal-adjusted people may even justify their negative words and actions through the adage, by claiming that it is better for them to be themselves (and potentially a scourge on society) than it is for them to conform and be a positive influence.

It is not my intention to judge this way of thinking, at this point. But merely to inspire thought on it.

I feel I should also raise the issue of the word “what” in the adage, and its intended meaning. It is my view that it is used in an all-encompassing manner, and not limited merely to physiological traits. Therefore, I take it to include all aspects of humanity (psyche, sexuality, physiology, etc.), and not greatly different than had the word “who” been used instead.

I suppose what my example questions is whether, in certain cases, it is actually wise (or sensible, advantageous, polite, etc.) to actually comply with one’s own impulses. Or whether, perhaps it would be more so, if one exercised some degree of control over oneself in order to maintain a greater level of social harmony. I haven’t gone as far as to bring up any “strategic” relevance to my question, but if you feel that it is worth considering in any way, then please do so before answering. You may also want to consider just how much restraint and artifice are involved in everyday social interaction, if you feel it relevant.

Well, that’s about it for now… I look forward to hearing what anyone has to say on this subject.

[diB4u]

“I would rather be hated for what I am, than to be loved for what I am not”.



Hmm, well to be honest that is such a contrasting statement that the answers, at least for me, can not be solved. André Paul Guillaume Gide, who created that phrase, was a man who’s works included trying to understand his inner personality with regards to conflict.

So personally, hatred is such a strong word, but given the context of the question then answer at this stage would indeed be yes. Hate me for what I am, hate me for being mixed race, for being who I am, for being a big woman… Hate me with a passion if needs be because I’m bi curious, that I don’t fit into the mainstream sexuality or gender groups. That is fine, because everyone has choices to make. So a person hates me, fair enough. That I can deal with.

However looking at the second part of the question- to love me for what I am not. Is it better to have friends, lovers, or the family you choose to live with, that are not what you deemed special? Can a person lets say for argument, is big like me then… Why would I want someone in my life to only be there because I’m not thin. I know plenty of men (for the better word “Chubby Chasers”) who are only attracted to big women. The men that I’ve encountered have publicly declared, that there with big women because they don’t like a skinner woman. Therefore, is that person with them for who they are, or who they are not?

Is there a balance within ones self to keep a check on things. Does the Id/ Ego/ SuperEgo not compensate for this dilemma?

When I get admires and its been known- they first of all say “wow, I love big women” I am instantly turned off by them. Instead if a person would say “Everyone is different I like all sorts!” Then I am attracted to them.

Go figure?

Moving onto another example, say mental health- as that was your example. I would once again rather be hated for having idiosyncrasy, rather loved for not showing them.
For example someone the hit TV show The beauty and the geek.

They are attracted to each other, for what the other person doesn’t have. The women don’t have brains, and the men don’t have looks ( although I never said that)

There really can not be a balance, how can a person be loved for who they are, but yet be hated for what they don’t represent?

Maybe, I’ve lost the argument, would a person Not love someone that does have mental health issues? Would a man not love another man because he is gay? Do all single people hate every married couples because they are not the same?

Friends may have correlating similarities, yet, each person is still individual. Friends forgive each other regardless of their sexuality, ethnicity and morality. Whilst trying to form an answer to your question I came across this. “A person is better known for their enemies than their friends”.


To sum up, there is no answer, for the human psyche is vast. There can be no right or wrong answer.

[alaskacouple]

It seems to me that the key to the statement is to be found in the word "love".

In general social relationships we do not normally "love" everyone nor do we seek their love. Love is a much deeper and stronger emotion- one that develops over time with those special people who come into our lives. With that in mind then, the statement does make some sense in that a person should not try to be "loved" for being someone/something different from one's true self.

However, that doesn't mean that we should not try to develop and use certain social graces. IMHO it does me no harm to be kind and considerate to others in society (in fact, for me it makes me feel happier and more at peace). But, everyone has the option to choose how they will live in a society. It has been my experience that those who choose to be their "true" abrasive selves usually end up having no one to love them but themselves.

I guess I don't find the statement that profound - it assumes that "what I am" is something carved into granite, when actually we are a bit more malleable than that and we do have the ability to "become" something more lovable without sacrificing "who/what" we are. Love is all about more than one. I think it would be the rare relationship that survived without some tempering of the individuals involved - being totally "myself" in all circumstances is really little more than being selfish and self centered.

[shameless agitator]

Well, I take a little different interpretation of the statement than dib. I've always seen this as being similar to Shakespeare's "To thine own self be true.... thou cannot be false to any other man". I've always taken the loved for what I am not portion to mean being loved for a false image somebody has of you. I would much rather have somebody hate me for being bi, loud, opinionated & occasionally obnoxious than to love me because they think I'm straight, meek and always considerate. That's just not who I am, and I'm not willing to sacrifice my inner self for anybody's affection. That said, there are times when it's better to keep your mouth shut & not rock the boat unnecessarily. You all know how anti-religion I am, yet I have friends and family members who are very deeply religious. I see no need to attack them or their faith, so we generally just avoid the subject. I'm still being true to myself & not claiming to share their convictions, but there's no reason to fight about it, or allow it to become a source of enmity between us. The same goes for my activism etc. There's a difference between deciding not to shove your beliefs down somebody else's throat & disavowing them.

[Skater Boy]

My sincerest thanks to those who contributed their views to this thread. I'm not sure if I've reached any definite conclusions as yet, and I still have a few unaswered queries, but everything thus far has been good food for thought.

Saludos,

SB

[alaskacouple]

Would the statement make more sense if it said;

'I would rather be rejected for who I am and what I believe, than be accepted for being something that I am not.'

I guess for me the words 'love' and 'hate' don't relate to very many people in my life. Actually, I hate no one and love only a few.

And regarding being socially obnoxious, sometimes 'who I am and what I believe' just aren't worth being offensive about. But then, a stranger's acceptance of me doesn't mean too much - LOL - and I've already commented on how I feel about those I love.

[thinkfree39]

I sometimes envy people who are able to speak what's on their mind without worrying about what others will think. They seem to enjoy a freedom that I don't. But that's not me.

When I shoot from the hip and embarrass myself or try to be funny and hurt someone, it pains me greatly. Probably more than it should. Nevertheless, I've learned to pass my words through a sensitivity filter before I speak. I'm always conscious of how I'm perceived. Does this make me fake? I used to think so but not any more. I don't lie or cover up. I'm not afraid to reveal my flaws. I don't think I do this in an effort to be loved. Liked maybe, but is that so bad? I don't like thoughtless people so I try very hard not to be one. Being careful with my words doesn't make me someone I'm not.

To actually maintain a false personality has got to be a ton of work and I'm just too damn lazy.

[gfofbiguy]

I sometimes envy people who are able to speak what's on their mind without worrying about what others will think. They seem to enjoy a freedom that I don't. But that's not me.

When I shoot from the hip and embarrass myself or try to be funny and hurt someone, it pains me greatly. Probably more than it should. Nevertheless, I've learned to pass my words through a sensitivity filter before I speak. I'm always conscious of how I'm perceived. Does this make me fake? I used to think so but not any more. I don't lie or cover up. I'm not afraid to reveal my flaws. I don't think I do this in an effort to be loved. Liked maybe, but is that so bad? I don't like thoughtless people so I try very hard not to be one. Being careful with my words doesn't make me someone I'm not.

To actually maintain a false personality has got to be a ton of work and I'm just too damn lazy.

I have to say, I seem to do the same thing, pass my thoughts through my "sensitivity filter" before I speak, because although I do tend to speak my mind, I try to do it in a way that is not going to hurt the other person or seem like I am disrespecting their thoughts/opinions and/or beliefs. However, if I perceive that someone is attacking me personally, my opinions/beliefs, I do let them have it without passing through that "filter", without thinking before I speak - I guess I could say I tend to see 'red' - because I (usually) feel (at that point) that they don't really care what they are saying could hurt another person and so why should I care at that point?

"Hate me for what I am, rather than love me for what I am not"...

I don't think, though, that I maintain myself (for lack of a better word) as something that I am not or that I have a "false personality" because of this "filter"; I think that it usually (hopefully) facilitates better communication between people - when passed through said "filter" - instead of what insults and attacks on one's beliefs do.

[HighEnergy]

I sometimes envy people who are able to speak what's on their mind without worrying about what others will think. They seem to enjoy a freedom that I don't. But that's not me.

When I shoot from the hip and embarrass myself or try to be funny and hurt someone, it pains me greatly. Probably more than it should. Nevertheless, I've learned to pass my words through a sensitivity filter before I speak. I'm always conscious of how I'm perceived. Does this make me fake? I used to think so but not any more. I don't lie or cover up. I'm not afraid to reveal my flaws. I don't think I do this in an effort to be loved. Liked maybe, but is that so bad? I don't like thoughtless people so I try very hard not to be one. Being careful with my words doesn't make me someone I'm not.

To actually maintain a false personality has got to be a ton of work and I'm just too damn lazy.

That sensitivity filter is something I have to work on. I tend to just say things and piss folks off without trying too hard.

The other day at work, there was a woman who said she wouldn't vote for Obama because he's a Muslim. No he's not, he attends the Church of Christ. Then another woman said but his middle name is Huessien (spelling?) and she thought we should have a nice man with a name like Washington. And I replied, "Well, with a name like Washington you'll still end up with a black man." They ran like roaches when the light comes on. My mentor agreed with me, but suggested I work on my delivery. I told her, "fuck 'em if they are closed minded bigots." Funny, she still thought I needed to work on my delivery. :eek:

[Germanicus]

I take the reverse of Skateboy's opening statement since I think "Its better to be loved for what/who you are, than disliked for what/who you are not".

No-one should ever be false to another </ideal world>, but its not always possible to be so. The problem with the phrase "being true to one's self" is that it is often thrown around like some "get out of jail card" to excuse one's own behaviour, but you often find that those who say this want it to apply to themselves and their behaviour, but when they are affected by someone else "being true to themselves" they are the first to complain. Sometimes it used to show that no-one else has "power" over them, but in the end, its just a moral Persil that washes whiter than white for the head-up-the-arse brigade.

Nonetheless, the key is sensitivity. Shameless is right to say that some opinions differ (religion) and that the subject isnt brought up. This is a compromise, if you like, but its not a shameful one - in my opinion. I have friends and relations who have offensive opinions (race, etc), but just because I don't vocally disagree with them or are actively oppose them doesnt make me false since they can say that my opinions are offensive to them. It doesnt make me false or a coward, I just realise that there are somethings that need to be overlooked otherwise I would lose a valuable friendship from "being myself". My counsellor recently asked me why I didnt behave in such a way (being true to myself all the time) and I answered that I am not the only person on this planet and in society, and that if I behaved in such a way I would certainly have a very lonely life.

IMHO, if you go around being true to yourself all the time, then you have no right to complain if people keep their distance.

[diB4u]

Yes I can see what you mean as well. I would much prefer someone to like and dare i say love me (if it ever happens) for who i am and not for what i am not.

I am a moody, stubborn, troll at times, but i can be soft, secretive and sensitive... I am not a twenty four hour happy person, far far far from that.



Yes that is true- whist i like ppl, i like to make friends, i am compassionate and caring... I am not and never would be Marry Poppins on speed.

I like a person for who they are, and most certainly not what they are not..... If your 7 foot 7 and can make me laugh then i like you. If your 7 foot 7 and are a grumpy person then I'd more than likely just avoid ya.

[the mage]

Its a sideways way of saying "Be true to yourself"

However the issue of social norms and social interplay can be discussed in many ways.
Internet discussion is a new experience for mankind. It is a new reality of communication in which many people take liberties which they would not in a work place or in person in a bar.
Flashing genitals as a greeting comes to mind..