If you're truly repentant for having wronged someone, one of the things you have to accept is living with the consequences of your past mistakes, and accepting that you can't undo what you have done, and maybe that's just the way it is.
But there's a second part to it.
I sometimes get conflicted about this, because situational factors.
My older sister was abusive. "Awesomely", apparently studies have shown that in terms of long-term damage to abuse victims, outcomes are worse for being abused by a sibling than pretty much anyone else, parents included.
My sister remains unrepentant, as far as I know - I haven't talked to her in about seven years. I offered her simple terms. Either she could treat me with respect, and we could have a healthy adult relationship, or we could have no relationship at all.
She not only refused, by characterised my offer as a vicious and cruel attack on her by me, and I got yelled at - it could have destroyed my relationship with my parents except I had done it by e-mail and could forward what I actually said to my parents.
(She is really, really good at manipulating our parents.)
And the thing is, we're first-generation immigrants. She's a third of my family, basically, because growing up it was just our parents and her and me, and if she somehow managed to get to a point where she was willing to make the effort on this, it would be really, really difficult for me to say no.
Even though she's the source of most of my truly significant damage.
She's been toxic for most of my life and I can't imagine her being a healthy relationship in the future, but I also think it's possible I might have caved by now if my friends were less supportive of my refusal to resume a relationship with her on anything less than equal terms.
So I think it's not just important to acknowledge that people who have been hurt by someone have a right to want to avoid them thereafter, but I think it should be put in different terms.
Fundamentally: If someone has previously been abusive, and seeks atonement, it shouldn't be that their past victims have the "right" not to want to see them. I think the assumption should be that the abusers, if their regret is sincere, should accept the obligation to try to avoid them unless the person they've hurt has explicitly invited them to do otherwise.
Expecting people who've been hurt to have to advocate themselves, to find the strength to take the stand against that exposure, knowing that it risks negative reactions from other bystanders as well as potentially provoking someone they may not yet have been able to stop fearing?
That's not really okay for me.
If I encountered my sister in a random social situation, I'd feel overwhelming pressure to be polite and nice, because otherwise it would make it awkward for other people around us, and I would still also be freaked out and upset and scared and it would be a traumatically awful thing.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
But there's a second part to it.
I sometimes get conflicted about this, because situational factors.
My older sister was abusive. "Awesomely", apparently studies have shown that in terms of long-term damage to abuse victims, outcomes are worse for being abused by a sibling than pretty much anyone else, parents included.
My sister remains unrepentant, as far as I know - I haven't talked to her in about seven years. I offered her simple terms. Either she could treat me with respect, and we could have a healthy adult relationship, or we could have no relationship at all.
She not only refused, by characterised my offer as a vicious and cruel attack on her by me, and I got yelled at - it could have destroyed my relationship with my parents except I had done it by e-mail and could forward what I actually said to my parents.
(She is really, really good at manipulating our parents.)
And the thing is, we're first-generation immigrants. She's a third of my family, basically, because growing up it was just our parents and her and me, and if she somehow managed to get to a point where she was willing to make the effort on this, it would be really, really difficult for me to say no.
Even though she's the source of most of my truly significant damage.
She's been toxic for most of my life and I can't imagine her being a healthy relationship in the future, but I also think it's possible I might have caved by now if my friends were less supportive of my refusal to resume a relationship with her on anything less than equal terms.
So I think it's not just important to acknowledge that people who have been hurt by someone have a right to want to avoid them thereafter, but I think it should be put in different terms.
Fundamentally: If someone has previously been abusive, and seeks atonement, it shouldn't be that their past victims have the "right" not to want to see them. I think the assumption should be that the abusers, if their regret is sincere, should accept the obligation to try to avoid them unless the person they've hurt has explicitly invited them to do otherwise.
Expecting people who've been hurt to have to advocate themselves, to find the strength to take the stand against that exposure, knowing that it risks negative reactions from other bystanders as well as potentially provoking someone they may not yet have been able to stop fearing?
That's not really okay for me.
If I encountered my sister in a random social situation, I'd feel overwhelming pressure to be polite and nice, because otherwise it would make it awkward for other people around us, and I would still also be freaked out and upset and scared and it would be a traumatically awful thing.