http://samvak.tripod.com/abuse7.html

I mailed this around pretty heavily today. I thought it was great.

===============

Is there anything you can do to avoid abusers and narcissists to start with? Are there any warning signs, any identifying marks, rules of thumb to shield you from the harrowing and traumatic experience of an abusive relationship?

Imagine a first or second date. You can already tell if he is a would-be abuser. Here's how:

Perhaps the first telltale sign is the abuser's alloplastic defenses – his tendency to blame every mistake of his, every failure, or mishap on others, or on the world at large. Be tuned: does he assume personal responsibility? Does he admit his faults and miscalculations? Or does he keep blaming you, the cab driver, the waiter, the weather, the government, or fortune for his predicament?

Is he hypersensitive, picks up fights, feels constantly slighted, injured, and insulted? Does he rant incessantly? Does he treat animals and children impatiently or cruelly and does he express negative and aggressive emotions towards the weak, the poor, the needy, the sentimental, and the disabled? Does he confess to having a history of battering or violent offenses or behavior? Is his language vile and infused with expletives, threats, and hostility?

Next thing: is he too eager? Does he push you to marry him having dated you only twice? Is he planning on having children on your first date? Does he immediately cast you in the role of the love of his life? Is he pressing you for exclusivity, instant intimacy, almost rapes you and acts jealous when you as much as cast a glance at another male? Does he inform you that, once you get hitched, you should abandon your studies or resign your job (forgo your personal autonomy)?

Does he respect your boundaries and privacy? Does he ignore your wishes (for instance, by choosing from the menu or selecting a movie without as much as consulting you)? Does he disrespect your boundaries and treats you as an object or an instrument of gratification (materializes on your doorstep unexpectedly or calls you often prior to your date)? Does he go through your personal belongings while waiting for you to get ready?

Does he control the situation and you compulsively? Does he insist to ride in his car, holds on to the car keys, the money, the theater tickets, and even your bag? Does he disapprove if you are away for too long (for instance when you go to the powder room)? Does he interrogate you when you return ("have you seen anyone interesting") – or make lewd "jokes" and remarks? Does he hint that, in future, you would need his permission to do things – even as innocuous as meeting a friend or visiting with your family?

Does he act in a patronizing and condescending manner and criticizes you often? Does he emphasize your minutest faults (devalues you) even as he exaggerates your talents, traits, and skills (idealizes you)? Is he wildly unrealistic in his expectations from you, from himself, from the budding relationship, and from life in general?

Does he tell you constantly that you "make him feel" good? Don't be impressed. Next thing, he may tell you that you "make" him feel bad, or that you make him feel violent, or that you "provoke" him. "Look what you made me do!" is an abuser's ubiquitous catchphrase.

Does he find sadistic sex exciting? Does he have fantasies of rape or pedophilia? Is he too forceful with you in and out of the sexual intercourse? Does he like hurting you physically or finds it amusing? Does he abuse you verbally – does he curse you, demeans you, calls you ugly or inappropriately diminutive names, or persistently criticizes you? Does he then switch to being saccharine and "loving", apologizes profusely and buys you gifts?

If you have answered "yes" to any of the above – stay away! He is an abuser.

<map name="amenuB"></map> Then there is the abuser's body language. It comprises an unequivocal series of subtle – but discernible – warning signs. Pay attention to the way your date comports himself – and save yourself a lot of trouble!

This is the subject of the next article (http://samvak.tripod.com/abuse8.html).

Continue ... (http://samvak.tripod.com/abuse8.html)

Itschaotic,

You are one of my favorite people here and your posts are always intelligent and interesting. You have done every woman here a great favor by the above link and info. It should be required reading for every young woman and some older ones too. It should be a STICKY!

Regards,
Coral

Wow that was interesting to read ....


Thank you Ian :D

Thank-you Coral. I'm humbled by your comments. I have had cause to have a deep respect often for your contributions here. It has been you and people like you that have helped build a confidence in myself that I've never felt as strongly as I do in your company.

I trust you to be frank and critical as I learn my way with the power of authority.
Ian.

That is some pretty pointed stuff, Ian. I don't know anything about the author, but he's really aggressive in this piece. I really like the way there's no doubt we’re talking about guys here, too.

I wish it were as simple as this makes it sound. Doesn't it seem likely that there are plenty of abusers out there that don't exhibit any of these signs at first? We sure see it; the guys that aren't exhibiting these outward signs are the ones that are the biggest danger, in our opinion.

Then there's the Other Problem, the one that would often short circuit the whole identification process he outlines: it depends on the female's perception of the male's characteristics and behavior.

We all have built in mechanisms designed to warp that perception, exactly so we don't notice these things. The guys that exhibit gross behavioral artifacts like this are usually not very good at activating these mechanisms, and they tend to be correspondingly bumbling at the rest of it, too.

Which is why I said the ones you don't notice are more dangerous. As far as we know, there's no sure way to tell the abusers by their stripes. You can only trust your perception of something other than these characteristics.

That's why Kay and I developed our 'line of your life' analogy. Looking at how both of your paths met and where they look like they're going avoids looking in places where a primitive mechanism could warp our perception.

How many of us have known someone in a relationship that was so obviously going to be bad for them, yet they couldn't see it at all? Or someone that repeatedly winds up with men that are unquestionably wrong for them?

That's the problem we think needs addressing, a way for that woman to 'see' that she doesn't see it correctly, while it's happening.

Articles like this sure open the debate, though, don't they?

That is some pretty pointed stuff, Ian. I don't know anything about the author, but he's really aggressive in this piece.
The "author" is a very well known narcissist, and someone who's words I would be very leary of. I believe it would take more than one or two dates to know this much about a person, and Vankin [the author] is smart enough to know this.

I am not saying there are no good points here, there are, but to make it a forum focal post is a narcissits dream. Vankin would love it!

-Viktoria

Thanks Ian for the article. It was an eye opener since I havent dated much since William. I was just starting a new situation so this article will be of help...cause I had no idea of the signs thank Ian.

Thank-you Coral. I'm humbled by your comments. I have had cause to have a deep respect often for your contributions here. It has been you and people like you that have helped build a confidence in myself that I've never felt as strongly as I do in your company.

I trust you to be frank and critical as I learn my way with the power of authority.
Ian.

Oh we will, you can surely trust us on this, especially with the "power" bit ;)

I think you have make some extremely grandiose but sweeping generalisations based on your own negative experiences of the opposite sex. These experiences should not be regarded as generic and I find the content of your posting to be both predudice and inaccurate!

The symptoms which you have suggested prove an abuser are symptoms of which virtually ever person in society exibit at some point in time and anyone can have a bad day/week/month.

In short, you can not predict a persons good or bad intentions/personality/behavior from one date or 2 dates.

:(

Perhaps you have met some abusers who have exibited some or all of the symptoms you have highlighted for us, however, you should not assume that these traits are indicative of an abuser. Making such predictions is discrimanatory and wholly wrong.

I do concede however that an abuser would probably exibit some or all of the symptoms you have mentioned this is not to say that everyone who exibits these symptoms is an abuser.

Regards,
Paul
non abuser

I think you have make some extremely grandiose but sweeping generalisations based on your own negative experiences of the opposite sex. These experiences should not be regarded as generic and I find the content of your posting to be both predudice and inaccurate!
Hi walsterus,

You raise some interesting points but Ian did not write the article posted. He merely provided it for our information. We can either accept or reject the information provide.

The symptoms which you have suggested prove an abuser are symptoms of which virtually ever person in society exibit at some point in time and anyone can have a bad day/week/month. I think the article provides some emphasis (some might believe hyperbole) to get our attention, however the words:


(Quoting the article)

"Does he find sadistic sex exciting? Does he have fantasies of rape or pedophilia? Is he too forceful with you in and out of the sexual intercourse? Does he like hurting you physically or finds it amusing? "




. . .surely do not apply to everyone. If this is someone's idea of fun, even if only on a bad day, this is someone I do not want to be around. I believe most wise people would not want to become involved with such a person either. If someone should display this behavior on a first date -- although why anyone would be having sex with a near stranger on a first date I cannot imagine -- I would run.

In short, you can not predict a persons good or bad intentions/personality/behavior from one date or 2 dates. If someone behaves very aggressively on a first date, when it would be to his advantage to be on his best behavior, how on earth is he going to behave on subsequent dates. Some of this advice is just good sense. The clearest indicator of future behavior is past behavior in most instances.



Perhaps you have met some abusers who have exibited some or all of the symptoms you have highlighted for us, however, you should not assume that these traits are indicative of an abuser. Making such predictions is discrimanatory and wholly wrong.
I agree with much of what was posted. I have many women friends who have met up with physical abusers. Even married them. Most of them saw such red flags early on but chose to ignore them. Now Stabile raises the interesting point that many abusers are clever enough not to display these traits early on, but for those that do, isn't it good to heed early warning?

I am puzzled about your use of the word "discriminatory."

1. I cannot see how mere predictions can be discriminatory. Discrimination usually takes place against persons and not against hypothetical future behavior.

2. Even if it were directed at people, what is wrong with discriminating against abusers? Abusers are not a protected class of people. U.S. law forbids discrimination based upon such things as race, sex, religion or creed, disability. Abuse is not a disability. Physical abuse is a criminal act and justly deserves punishment and the law justly provides it to protect victims and maintain justice and order. For instance, if someone is sent to prison for abuse, is that discrimination? Of course not! That is justice.


Regards,
Paul
non abuser
Interesting signature. Would you care to explain it? No one in this thread accused any specific person of being an abuser.

I found it interesting personally and to be honest anyone that suggested marriage on a first or second date you should run from just as a general policy to dating..

i have unfortunately found that abusive relationships do not always experience physical but emotional issues.. its the "its your fault your not supportive if you happen to question anything i do " type and the " oh you want space then you must be seeing someone else or plan to see someone else" type that drive me crazy because my "take care of others before myself " part of my personality comes into the first and my "oh, so you think id do that fine ill show you im extremely faithful" personality comes to the second
if any of you understand that lol
anyway i think the article has alot of good warning signs, but like everything else in the world nothing is black and white and unfortunately there is always someone that will not follow the general rule..
some abusers are not easy to see until you realize too late it is occurring on the other hand i thought the article was a good informative piece on things to be aware of and maybe look at closely if you plan on having a long term relationship with someone showing these behaviors
but then again thats just my opinion :D

i have unfortunately found that abusive relationships do not always experience physical but emotional issues.. its the "its your fault your not supportive if you happen to question anything i do " type and the " oh you want space then you must be seeing someone else or plan to see someone else" type that drive me crazy because my "take care of others before myself " part of my personality comes into the first and my "oh, so you think id do that fine ill show you im extremely faithful" personality comes to the second

Great comments SOX911! I did understand.

Unfortunately women in particular have been conditioned to believe they must always put others first, although I am sure that many men have fallen into that particular trap as well.

It seems that some people think that the people who have been traditionally designated the caretakers of children must also be taking care of men. I confess I thought that in my twenties because as the older sister of three brothers that had always been my role. By the time I was in my thirties, I was seriously questioning that role and by the time I was in my forties I decided that all grown ups should take care of themselves. Needless to say, I learned my lessons the hard way. :rolleyes:

Let's face it, someone who would suggest marriage on the first date is at best incautious. I once read that the most lasting marriages take place between people who have known each other at least about two years before marriage. Someone who was in a big hurry -- for anything:D -- would cause me to back away. I would worry about

The fast fade . . . we are all familiar with that one.
That he was in a hurry so I wouldn't see his faults.
That the level of neediness was skyhigh.
That he would try to contol me.
The performance in bed would be equally rushed.

I wasn't so aware that a big rush was a signal for a possible abuser until my daughter, Suzanna, met a guy in a big rush.

In 2002, she met this guy at a club after a breakup with a long term boyfriend, and this guy was a good-looking musician who played just her sort of music. My daughter is a pretty girl and she is very used to guys fawning over her, but this one -- let's call him Lonnie -- was way over the top. He adored her. She was gorgeous. How soon could he see her again. He had this powerful feeling about her. Maybe she was The ONE!

At the time my daughter was a bit of a fool for musicians. She was quite willing to overlook the fact that they were often unemployed. After her third date with Lonnie, he showed up at her door with his luggage. He couldn't live without her! Suzanna explained to him that she wasn't ready for a sexual relationship with him. He was oh-cool-with-that. He just wanted to be near her.

My daughter is a trusting soul. She let him move in. He was cute so one thing led to another and the very seductive Lonnie was soon sharing her bed, her meals, and she was sharing his dreams. He was indeed talented. Sounded just like Trent Resnor. (I told her the world already had a Trent Resnor.) Before ya know the Lonnie with eyelashes "at least a half inch long" was also sharing her financial resources. She bought him a CD burner. She helped market his band. She loaned him money. He did not sign the lease.

Time goes by. He alternately praises her to the sky and criticizes her unmercifully. Her head motion looks like she is watching a tennis match. He flirts with other women. He is jealous of every man who looks at her. He cuts off her relationships with others. He builds a friendship with the woman next door, who I will call Sexy Lexy.

When my daughter comes to visit me for Christmas (without Lonnie), this girl who was vibrant and confident, if overdressed, suddenly exhibits very uncharacteristic insecurity. But of course she just adores Lonnie and everything is divine if only her hips weren't two inches to big and her bust two inches to small and her hair suddenly impossible and her sex appeal fading. This was pretty puzzling, especially since at a place we went to eat the kitchen staff thought she was a movie star and when she said that she wasn't, they asked for autograph anyway. Such an ugly girl, who turns head everywhere she goes.:rolleyes: Clearly something was wrong. I suspected Lonnie. I cautioned her that his behavior and financial desperation indicated he might steal from her. In six months, he hadn't bothered to look for a job.

Fast forward to March 2003. She calls me and informs me that Lonnie will be moving out. It seems Sexy Lexy has informed my daughter that she and Lonnie have been lovers and that Sexy Lexy is breaking up with him because he is impossible and she just wanted Suzanna to know what a jerk he was. Lonnie did not have chance to plead his case. Suzanna helped him pack.

Later, when she checked her cash stash she found that all $500 she had been saving for a new computer was missing.

Expensive lesson.

She later learned that, though he had never struck her, he had physically abused two of his past girlfriends.

Suzanna may make other mistakes but she won't make that one again.

You are right SOX to point out that verbal abuse is also abuse.

OH that poor girl.. yeah havent been there in that situation exactly but my heart goes out to her.. i wonder and men dont take this personally im not a male basher i know some absolutely awesome guys.. my dad included :) but this is about jerkyboys... not the awesome end of the male species.. why do jerkyboys who are in the wrong want to put it on you.. the manipulation if you are not too close to the situation is almost amusing to witness.. sigh.. i know women arent the only ones that have this stuff happen to them but that story broke my heart.. sometimes i think emotional abuse is almost worse.. it changes your spirit.. not that i condone any type of abuse but there is nothing worse to me than attempting to break another human beings spirit and attempting to destroy their most prized possession.. themself

Well SOX, she certainly changed her outlook on men. She made sure the next guy she connected with wouldn't need to steal from her. :) The one she has now really brings in the money, but he is a workaholic. Seems like the lessons we learn sometime cause us to go to the other extreme.

At least he treats her well when he is home.

The world is full of wounded people, isn't it? (I certainly don't exclude myself.) It is a puzzle why people get together -- all optimistic -- and then proceed to hurt each other. Sometimes there are bullies and victims, and sometime people just go at each other. So sad.

OH that poor girl.. yeah havent been there in that situation exactly but my heart goes out to her.. i wonder and men dont take this personally im not a male basher i know some absolutely awesome guys.. my dad included :) but this is about jerkyboys... not the awesome end of the male species.. why do jerkyboys who are in the wrong want to put it on you.. the manipulation if you are not too close to the situation is almost amusing to witness.. sigh.. i know women arent the only ones that have this stuff happen to them but that story broke my heart.. sometimes i think emotional abuse is almost worse.. it changes your spirit.. not that i condone any type of abuse but there is nothing worse to me than attempting to break another human beings spirit and attempting to destroy their most prized possession.. themself
Emotional abuse is murder of the soul. :(

Another observation I would like to ADD, if no one minds.

I my past experiences, I would say that sometimes, a woman may unknowningly attract an abuser. (Verbal or physical) I say this because when I was younger, a single mother, my self-esteem was non-existant! The men I found were mind sucking, non-working cruel arrogant and narcissistic men. After one plus years with a physical abuser, and a couple of years with verbal abusers, I finally realized that I was better then that. I had a lot to offer someone, and I deserved to be loved as much as I love.

I was able to turn it around, and make my way through a couple decent, but boring relationships, (went the other way to the extreme) until I happened upon my current husband. The first night we spent 7 hours talking. I knew that he was the man I was going to spend the rest of my life with. A year and a half later, we were married.

It was a long road of self-discovery! But well worth the trip. I learned many invaluable lessons. People may not be who they seem. Take your time, get to know someone. And most important, trust my instincts! (I ignored my instincts during the abusive stages of my life)

And Coral, I am so sorry to hear of your daughter Suzanna's plight. Sometimes the verbal and controlling behavior can be so much more destructive due to it being so subtle that the recipient does not know what is happening until they have totally lost themselves. Kudos to her for getting out. Some dont, they would continue to make excuses for and forgive until it is too late.

It was a long road of self-discovery! But well worth the trip. I learned many invaluable lessons. People may not be who they seem. Take your time, get to know someone. And most important, trust my instincts! (I ignored my instincts during the abusive stages of my life)

And Coral, I am so sorry to hear of your daughter Suzanna's plight. Sometimes the verbal and controlling behavior can be so much more destructive due to it being so subtle that the recipient does not know what is happening until they have totally lost themselves. Kudos to her for getting out. Some dont, they would continue to make excuses for and forgive until it is too late.
I am so glad you found the right path and the right man. That part about instincts. There is a self-protection expert who wrote a book called The Gift of Fear and I recommend it every chance I get because it is so wise. He emphasizes over and over how important it is that we learn to trust our instincts. If our little voice tells us something -- no matter how it may contradict appearances -- we should listen.

Suzanna says that she didn't really feel comfortable with Lonnie when she first met him but she let his good looks and his flattery distract her.

I consulted her before posting her story. She was cool with it.

Sounds like a book my daughter's and I should have the benefit of. Thanks.

Emotional abuse is murder of the soul. :(
That's true in a perfectly scientific way, too.

Kay and I have a definition of rape, the forced self violation of another person, in which we mean to imply both that the victim's self is violated, and also that the victim is forced to commit the actual violation.

A person's self is changed arbitrarily in this process. That's the murder of the soul thing in a nutshell, and it's real.

That is what sets it apart from all other crimes, and it doesn't matter a whit if there is sex involved. All that matters is a person is forced to make themselves into something they are not.

On the flip side, there's a positive escape from the whole problem, once the nature of the underlying mechanisms are identified.

(Hold on 'til the end, it isn't as bad as it sounds…)

The correct view is that women have built in genetic 'defects' that allow men to make them do these things, violate their self model to construct what the male wants her to be.

I know that's hard to accept, but truly understanding it brings you face-to-face with the fact that the self model that gets violated is just a model after all, just a vessel for the kernel of being that we all carry inside, the real self.

And the model a male forces you to make isn't yours. It isn't even you. Once you see it correctly, you can abandon everything but the trauma. And often, you can clearly see it coming the next time, and step out of the way.

Coral Rhedd's daughter would have been in pain, but she wouldn't have felt responsible, and she certainly wouldn't have had to suffer from a poor self image.

Isn't it funny how that kind of thing is how we all recognize what's happened to a person? It's the definition of an inappropriate change, something a person is forced to make in themselves not by their own choice.


…That part about instincts. There is a self-protection expert who wrote a book called The Gift of Fear and I recommend it every chance I get because it is so wise. He emphasizes over and over how important it is that we learn to trust our instincts. If our little voice tells us something -- no matter how it may contradict appearances -- we should listen…
The problem we have with this advice in general is that the mechanisms in women that allow men to force them to change themselves against their will all seem like one of these little voices you should listen to.

I don't know this book, and some advice is sound. When we talk about recognizing the mechanisms by which women are 'got' and learning to avoid them, it ends up sounding a bit like this, too.

But we've seen books that openly encourage women to engage in what we recognize as dangerous activity, trusting their instincts in situations that lead women into trouble all the time.

Do these authors think that the women that get into bad situations in a club or bar are stupid? I've never met a woman in any social situation that wasn't trying to act in her own best interests, even while walking right into something we knew was volatile at best.

There is no way that Coral Rhedd is going to accept the basic idea that her daughter is stupid as an explanation, and she is absolutely right in that.

The hardest thing for a woman (and men, too) to learn is that there are some instincts that you can't trust, that we all move through life in a frail human vehicle that has defects, some of which would cause us to betray our own selves.

And alcohol doesn't have anything to do with it. The only relationship to alcohol is the place where it happens. Look around long enough in any community anywhere, and you will find at least one perfectly sober woman being taken advantage of by a person of power in a local religious organization.

No matter that it somehow seems much worse; church secretaries are targets just like barflies, and they are as likely to fall when a deceitful male decides to apply the correct pressure.


+-------------------------------------+

I guess what we're saying is that women need to develop an instinct for when they can't trust their instincts, and then learn to listen to only the little voice of that single instinct.

+-------------------------------------+


The books we trust say something that is equivalent to that; the ones that make us suspicious don't say it at all.

That's what works for us; once you get it, you see it everywhere, and it can be a bit hard to take at first. If you find that some old favorite romantic movies have lost their luster, you're in the right place.

Stabile

Maybe I misunderstood your entire post, but in a less eloquent manner I say this, horsehocky!

In part you are correct about rape being about a man forcing someone to be something they arent, but ultimately, rape has nothing really to do with sex. It is all about violence and control. (unfortunately, I speak from experience.) And I can tell you, the situation that led me there, my little voices were telling me then not to go. Something is terribly wrong. But I didnt listen. I thought to myself, that this is a trusted person, he would never hurt me.........

I am not formally educated, obviously, but I did get one hell of a "street" education. Things are much diffenent from what they may seem from a formally educated person.

And the instinct thing.........it is when we hear it, AND IGNORE IT, that gets us into trouble. Not which little "voice" to listen to. (mine BTW is more of a gut feeling of sorts, it gets all knotted up and seems to turn in on itself)

Just curious, where did the idea of stupidity on the part of Coral's daughter come from. I dont think I mentioned stupidity anywhere. None of us are stupid. We are taken advantage of.

And I dont consider it a "genetic defect" allowing a male to make me do things, or become someone I am not. I believe it has more to do with socail acceptance. We have been placed in the same role for generations. Finally, the molds are being tossed away and women are more aggressive and attentive to reaching their own needs.

This is kind of a tricky spot. Trusting instincts, or listening to instincts. I think they are two different things, but I dont know how to explain it. And I now realize that "trust" is what I said. "To trust my own instincts."

Ok stabile, good point. Hows that for talking in circles.

Stabile

Maybe I misunderstood your entire post, but in a less eloquent manner I say this, horsehocky!
I always thought Col. Potter was saying horsepucky. Oh well…


In part you are correct about rape being about a man forcing someone to be something they arent, but ultimately, rape has nothing really to do with sex. It is all about violence and control. (unfortunately, I speak from experience.)
OK. We are also speaking from experience.

That is a technical definition, and a fairly subtle one at that. It's stood up well for over ten years now, and I expect it or something very similar will eventually become the standard.

I said that sex isn't necessary, but we tend to stay away from the usual phrases about rape, and the whole 'rape is about power' or violence, or control thing is really misunderstood.

It all stems from behavior associated with primitive reproductive impulses, so at the root, at least, it is about that. And understanding that behavior is the only way to break the loop.

One of the reasons that it's hard to accept what one sees when we learn to look for the underlying mechanisms is how much violence and exercise of power and control are right under the surface, in what most people accept as normal sexual behavior.

The key thing about the definition is the recognition that a person is forced to change the definition of who they are, what their true self is.

Back to that in a minute.


And I can tell you, the situation that led me there, my little voices were telling me then not to go. Something is terribly wrong. But I didn't listen….
Why not? That's the only relevant question, exactly what we’re trying to establish…


I thought to myself, that this is a trusted person, he would never hurt me.........
and there it is, pretty much exactly what we expected to hear.

Here's our question: why don't you consider that voice, the one saying, "…this is a trusted person, he would never hurt me…" to be the same voice that was saying don't go?

It gets worse, trying to unwind and analyze these things like this, and I hesitate to go too far with it. For example, there's every reason to expect that your memory of the voice saying 'it's OK' is constructed from the debris after the fact, incorrectly.

It's more likely that you didn't have the thought at all until the first time you reconstructed the memory of what happened. In a way, it's you explaining to yourself why what you think you did seemed to make sense at the time.

The truth is likely that it didn't make sense at all, but nothing else did at that moment either.

What we know of the deep mechanisms includes an understanding of how the actual model of your self is assembled, and that is a scary thing to behold.

But once you get used to it, it's trivial to see how anyone's idea of what they are and where they've been is vulnerable, a fragile collection of reconstructed memories that are all too easy to get wrong.

We believe the truth of anything we perceive is what we can make sense of. What happens during rape has purposely selected over thousands of years to not have any sense at all, in the conventional way we think of things.

'No' doesn't mean 'no' because it doesn't mean anything; in order to rape, a person must go beyond the social context in which meaning itself is defined, to circumvent the meaning in what is being done to the victim.

In the usual circumstances, a person reconstructs an idea about her self and her experience that includes reasons for what she 'did'. The trick is, there is no reason, and 'she' didn't do anything. If anything of note happened at all, it was to someone else, temporarily constructed by her from her own mind and body under duress.

Weird, isn't it? The thing is, this is a literal, scientifically supported interpretation of what happens.

The deep primitive mechanisms are essentially a kind of 'off' button for a woman's self model, because they allow a male to take her outside the social context just long enough to make the changes that will cause her to reassemble herself in a form more to his liking.

If that seems devious, realize that it's entirely in keeping with the general sense of desperation rampant in the single male world.

As consciousness, self-determination, and the appearance of free will became the norm after the invention of complex abstract language, the primitive mating strategy was squeezed into an increasingly strange form that includes areas of our personal universe that are blank, what Kay and I call 'black holes'.

Black holes serve to prevent us from recognizing that the primitive mating strategy is still alive and kicking. In a practical experiential sense, you can think of black holes as allowing you to see a situation in two completely different and contradictory ways, depending on how you got there. Both ways of seeing the situation seem completely sensible, at the time and forever after as well.

The only way to reconcile the memory of what you do while taking the sense of the situation one way with the memories of the other sense of it is to avoid the other interpretation, or 'lose' one set of memories, or invent a reason for the change and then compulsively pursue behavior that supports the 'new' you.

Or, you can do what Kay and I did, and dive right into the whole mess.

Sometimes I'm amazed we managed to come up again intact, and I can't recommend it.

Besides, it's not necessary. Kay is fond of saying we did that so others won't have to, and she's right. There isn't any reason to go under and try to make sense of all the debris, because it isn't really yours anyway.

The reason we did it was to understand how it gets put there, and unless you're interested in studying the theory you might as well stay home, because that is the only thing you can learn from it. Your history is not in there anywhere.

It's far more useful to learn how to interpret what your memories of an experience are likely to represent, and cultivating a doubt of your own memories is a difficult enough task in itself.

In the end, it turns all out to be a d*** safety mechanism for the rapist. He takes a quick chance on doing this little trick that is about self-definition, not sex, and if it works, he's got a woman that wants to do what he thinks is fun. Who cares what damage she does to herself while doing it, right?

If it doesn't work, it's no biggie. It wasn't about sex at all, and the worst that happens is he gets written up for inappropriate behavior.


I am not formally educated, obviously…
Boy, is that not true. It's not obvious at all.

Don't sell yourself short; we ADDers are really good at it, and it's probably our most dangerous trait.

Kay's first rule: We're never more dangerous than when we think it's OK to beat ourselves up.

Kay's second rule: Always look for the benevolent view, especially of yourself.


…but I did get one hell of a "street" education. Things are much different from what they may seem from a formally educated person…
Not hardly. Some people can fool themselves into believing they're different, but we all live in the same world, especially when it comes to this stuff.

Around here, a highly respected college professor, now fired and convicted of rape, is having his sentence contested by the DA because it consists of a relatively short period of house arrest.

If he was just a janitor, he would have been put away for ten years or so. But then, a janitor wouldn't have had access to the daughter of family friends, come to town to attend grad school.

The professor had the privilege of her looking him up (at his suggestion, of course). He took her to dinner, and then perhaps a dozen different bars, get her drunk, and then did his thing by force back in his office.

He couldn't take her home, because he has a wife and kids.

The janitor would have had to skip over the expensive dinner and pub crawl and go straight to the force. That's too big a jump for most people; as a species, we like to pretend, especially us males.

The professor had been doing the same thing for years and getting away with it because he managed to make it seem plausible to the victims that they might have somehow wanted to do it. I guess he was tired of the charade that night.

That difference, between the professor and the janitor, isn't what we're talking about. When it comes to real stuff, things that matter, we’re all the same. And our hypothetical janitor still has his dignity, and his job.

I'll take that any day.


And the instinct thing.........it is when we hear it, AND IGNORE IT, that gets us into trouble.
Nobody is that stupid, and I can guarantee you aren't just by the way that you express yourself.

By the same token, don't you think if it was that simple we would have fixed the problem long ago? What mom would withhold that information from her daughter?


Not which little "voice" to listen to. (mine BTW is more of a gut feeling of sorts, it gets all knotted up and seems to turn in on itself)
Kay calls them whispers.

I didn't say women should learn which voice to listen to, did I? I meant to state unequivocally that women shouldn't necessarily listen to the voices they do hear. They need to cultivate a different voice to tell them when they shouldn't listen to something that seems perfectly reasonable.

It's a question of learning what voice you can trust, I think, and accepting that sometimes there's a reason for not trusting one. I vote for only trusting one you create, because it hasn't been messed with by anyone else, not even nature.


Just curious, where did the idea of stupidity on the part of Coral's daughter come from. I dont think I mentioned stupidity anywhere. None of us are stupid. We are taken advantage of…
Boy is that ever the truth.

You didn't say anything about Coral Rhedd's daughter being stupid. I said that there is no way that she is, but it could have been misinterpreted if you skimmed it.

The funny thing about all of this is that the only people that end up being stupid are the males.

Think about that college professor for a minute. The only people that are going to suffer for his crime, regardless of the sentence, are his wife and kids. What the heck could he be thinking?

There really are a hundred janitors that he once had the power to hire and fire that are demonstrably more intelligent than he is. He once tried to promote one of them (a female, of course) to the position of 'lab manager', but she wouldn't have anything to do with it.


And I dont consider it a "genetic defect" allowing a male to make me do things, or become someone I am not…
The defect label is meant to be taken lightly. But it certainly exists, regardless of whether you wish it so. I am sorry. It's not my idea, and I would abolish it if I could.

I've been trying for a lot of years. So far all I've gained is the opportunity to speak in public like this about it. But don't laugh; that's significant progress.


I believe it has more to do with social acceptance. We have been placed in the same role(s) for generations…
By what? It's literally true, but it's important to recognize where those roles come from. They're defined in the basic package of impulses, behaviors, roles and goals that are associated with each of the two human mating strategies.

The roles are dressed up to fit the current cultural context, but underneath they're strictly defined and haven't varied much in the past, even over a time scale of centuries.

If you haven't run across our description of the two strategies yet, there's a modern one commonly called long term pair bonding, based on matching status with your mate.

And there's a primitive one we call 'quickie under a bush' that is entirely based on the principle that the female has no choice. In other words, rape.

Several higher primates have similar pairs of strategies. The modern strategies differ quite a bit, but the primitive ones are all remarkably similar. The roles are similar, too.

The actual number of generations that this has been going on would probably surprise you. The primitive strategy apparently predates everything except mating behavior itself.


Finally, the molds are being tossed away and women are more aggressive and attentive to reaching their own needs.
Amen to that, and we are certain that you're right about it, too. Things are changing fast, for the first time in perhaps a hundred thousand years, and we want to make sure we don't drag the primitive strategy into the future with us.

Even if we have to leave men behind. (grin…)


This is kind of a tricky spot. Trusting instincts, or listening to instincts. I think they are two different things, but I dont know how to explain it. And I now realize that "trust" is what I said. "To trust my own instincts."

Ok stabile, good point. Hows that for talking in circles.
Pretty nifty, I'd say. Thanks. Trust is the trick, and figuring out what you can trust and when is the answer.

(Honest. Would I kid you? I know I'm a guy, but hey, I really care. Really.)

(Jeeze, I wouldn't trust me, either. Why would you? Because of something I wrote? I hope not…)

Stabile,

Wow. I am still digesting your post, the recent one, and the one I replied to. After reading it a second time, I was off base. I did misinterpret most of that actually. So, I am carefully rereading both of them before I fly off the handle again.

You are probably right, it is horsepucky, but I prefer horsehocky. Sorry, I am not sure how to turn off my italics, I hit something by accident. LOL

I have a question for you......who ARE you? You have me looking hard inside myself for truth. I am not complaining, I am actually intrigued and would like to hear more...as long as you type slowly...:D But first I must read more. I am just fascinated with your perceptions and logic.


Now how the hell do I turn off the italics? Never mind....

I sent Ian this link to begin with so I need to weigh in here. I think there is some confusion as to what the real issue is. The problem was the title of the article itself. Yes, Sam is a well known narcissist himself. His expertise is in helping to identify and deal with THAT PARTICULAR TYPE OF ABUSER. I hope it is obvious to all of us that narcissists are NOT THE ONLY TYPE OF ABUSER. Sam has never claimed this. While the characteristics mentioned may well be applicable to other abusers, and yes, at times to non-abusers, they are alarmingly, definitely evident in narcissists. The fact that Sam is a narcissist himself has in no way damaged his ability to convey the truth about them. I know this from experience. I know this because I lived through a relationship with one of these monsters. Before it was over I was emotionally devastated, physically beaten into a concussion, partial vision loss, a ruptured disc, and on and on....Any of you who believe this cannot happen, or are concerned about stereotyping abusers (something that boggles my mind, actually) need to be careful. You are setting yourselves up as the perfect mark.

As far as a narcissist goes, this article did not begin at the beginning. I think the intention behind it was a good one, however. Frankly, if a cluster of these traits are recognized by you in another person within a short period of time, I can find no reason why you would not high-tail it in the other direction. The issue of trying to determine narcissism is irrelevant. Just get outta there poste-haste. If you're fortunate enough to do that, you won't need to deal with all of the other horror that comes when the negative parts of the narcissist come out of hiding.

One of the hallmarks of the narcissist, left out of this article, is his/her ability to suck you in with a charm and sweetness, a magneticsm, an intellect and wit, a sense of self-confidence, and an utterly deep connection with you...everything, in short, you've always wanted. However, these people are not real. They present what is called a "false self." The truth is, they don't even know where the truth ends and the faking begins. And they are not interesting in learning. They do not care one iota. I've had many life experiences but can say without a doubt that dealing with a creature such as this was one of the most horrific. Anyone I've spoken to who has personally dealt with a narcissist has said the same thing. In the wake of these people you are left humiliated, feeling utterly worthless, and completely positive that any intelligence you thought you may have had was but a farce. After all, any smart person would see this before it got out of hand, right? Well, months later I can tell you this......NO. Don't delude yourselves. A person with a heart and soul and conscience in tact cannot relate to the thoughts or behaviors of this type of individual. You can never really know them because they don't even have a real self. They change like the turning of a spicket. Therefore, not being able to pick them out is NOT a sign that you are inferior. They are different people depending on what they can gain in a given situation. You fill a need for a moment. You are a supplier of whatever it is that boosts their ego. They will do or say anything to keep you trapped. And again, they are smart enough to succeed in many cases. I'm not being melodramatic. I'm telling you the truth which can be found in other sources if Sam's work does not appeal to you.

Another point, narcisissts aren't drawn to weakliings. They are drawn to people who will represent a conquest. I have interviewed some of the most accomplished and intelligent men and women only to find that they have been utterly shattered by this abuse. There is a definite pattern to who these people go after. Honestly, it sorta made me feel better. I figured if they went for the brighter bulbs in the box it was a bit of a compliment. Believe me, if you ever find yourself in the middle of this nightmare you'll take what little positive you can get. It will not be much because for all but an eternity afterwards you will blame yourself for anything and everything merely because you feel you should have been smarter, you should have been quicker to see.....you should have been more than a human being....

I have no doubt that Ian posted this link hoping to help. I'm clarifying it only becuse I'm concerned that in the debate over different types of abusers, the reliability of the source etc... the issue of narcissism itself will be lost. It is a very uncomfortable topic of conversation for me. However, to assume the article is not dead on in its accuracy is simply to make a mistake that could well cost more than anyone ever wanted to pay. It nearly happened to me and I'm no dummy, so please hear me when I tell you, this is not a trumped up description of a character that does not exist. This is a dead on description of a particular abuser who can be, and often is, deadly.

There is not a sentence in the original article that I did not personally experience. I was, by the end, doubtful of my own ability to think and reason, completely sure that I was the idiot, positive I had no insight, and certain my prior life of independence was something I could not return to. I had become alienated from everyone who ever cared for me. This is but one of their tools. They take you out in a desert and leave you there lost. When he stalked and slugged me I was greatful. There was no way to justify that as the actions of someone who simply needed more understanding. There was no way to assume that I had done something to deserve it. You may find it difficult to believe you would think this way about all of the other abuse. Believe me, if it happens you'll sing a different tune. I had never been physically attacked before, and I was not going to tolerate it. I ended up in the hospital but had him arrested immediately. Charges, of course, were taken out against him and I followed through on those charges. However, in the meantime he took out 4 charges against me. I was still in the hospital at the time. They were four charges I didn't even understand. There was absolutely no basis for them and the police as much as said so. They were four charges that have now been completely dismissed and expunged. But they were four charges that required me to enter a jail, be booked and fingerprinted, and have a mugshot taken which shows a hugely swollen black and blue face, and one terrified woman slumped over in a wheelchair. Why did he do it? Because, just as is mentioned in Sam's article......nothing is the fault of a narcissist. Nothing. After he beat me he looked at me and said...and I quote..."LOOK WHAT YOU MADE ME DO." This is not a made up story, people. This was my life. Even during our court appearance he attempted to convince the judge his attorney was not doing her job. Are you hearing this?

Do not believe this does not exist. You would be passing up an opportunity to perhaps help someone, maybe yourself, should this particular evil pay a visit. I won in the end. He was found guilty and ordered to pay a hefty sum of money. He has already done it again to someone else. He still takes no responsibility. More important than any money, I learned. Do yourself a favor and consider this a lesson best learned vicariously. You don't want to live this one yourselves.

Do you remember how surprised you were to find a place such as this where all of the sudden you realized you weren't the only adult with ADD? Do you remember thinking, "Gosh, I can't believe how prevalent this is?" You may have known it logically, but to find others and interact with them brought a whole new understanding, right? Well, let me tell you, I've been stunned as I conduct interviews for a project, at the number of folks I continue to come across who've lived through the hell of a narcissist. In so many ways it is yet one more issue in the life of an adult that is far too easily shot down by people who simply do not understand it.

Peace.:)

Free,

Thank you for posting this. I have been in the wake of a female narcissist, and it is an experience I will never, ever forget. To this day, I am scared of her. Hide from her as much as is possible. I thought she was bright, friendly, and a warm person; someone who would be a good friend. How could I have been so wrong?

Your post explains it all.

Thank you!

Viktoria, this was not easy for me to post but I felt it was important and could possibly help someone. Thanks for your kind words. I really appreciate them.

free2beme
You have opened up my heart. This is as valuable for the people who know fear, as it is for those that don't.

I have to simply offer my thanks and hope to remain open to you.
Thank-you.
Ian.

We are talking about exactly the same stuff, not some other thing.

The problem is the taxonomy. We don't believe it's at all helpful to women to characterize behavior that is directly related to and supportive of underlying sexual behaviors as being something separate, like narcissism.

The purpose of the term itself has been perverted from the original meaning, and we are suspicious of those that would co-opt terms that were appropriate for a time long ago, when we didn't know how to access our inner selves directly.

We believe that people that are dedicated to yanking outdated terminology into the present have an agenda, and it isn't to help women, or ADDers, or anyone but themselves.

If the person that wrote the article is a narcissist, why aren't we running as fast as we can away from his writing?

We believe that everyone starts out with good intentions almost exclusively, regardless of where that takes them. Most of us manage to stay true to our intent, but some get waylaid by their own nature.

This happens at all different levels, and at different points along the way.

Someone that is derailed immediately might not catch much attention, unless what they do gets into the paper, or they knock at your door to give you notice of their status as a registered offender.

Some manage to get to places we can only imagine before they lose it, like Ken Lay or Richard Nixon. But regardless of when or where they derail, it's always for the same reason: they hold onto some underlying part of themselves that is related to the issues we've been discussing, and it corrupts their judgment.

Why do you think the phenomenon of 'trophy wives' exists? Why do pretty young secretaries lose their minds and marry beat up, sagging, balding bosses? Isn't that always about power? And what else have we been talking about?

It's all the same thing, and I don't trust people that try to put a taxonomic wall, a verbal shield, between women and their direct perception of their inner selves.

They have an agenda, and it is not good: they want to preserve all women, for their own use. Isn't that what the collection of traits called narcissism is all about?

We have been inside this, into the murkiest depths you can imagine. We have swum through the most unimaginably foul garbage and debris, and spent months after we escaped trying to get clean.

The one thing we know for certain, after all of that, is there isn't any shortcut that works.

Using outdated terms as a model to engender discussion is fine, as long as we watch closely for signs that someone we care for is actually starting to believe that there is a real thing like narcissism.

A verbal framework is one thing; letting it become real is dangerous. We know that everyone here is able to look into themselves and see directly what causes behaviors that look like narcissism.

We can work directly with the real stuff. Lets let old ideas fade away, once they've stimulated a conversation. It is the only thing that can make you and the people you love safe.

We can do this. We have the ability. We only need to nurture it, and believe in ourselves.

Are you hearing this?
Yup.

And thanks for posting this; it takes a kind of special courage to try to put these things into words. We know all about that.

Speaking about these things is made purposely difficult by the structure of language, even when they're your own personal experiences, even when speaking might save your life. That's why the few women who do get to court are already at a disadvantage. That's why the guy was able to get away with claiming he didn't do anything.

It's built into language itself, because it's built into all of us, male and female alike. Crazymama05 said it had to do with societal issues, and that is exactly the case.

But we are society; it's far more intertwined with how we define our own selves than anybody realizes, so we see unbelievable things and let them go by like a dream.


Do not believe this does not exist…
The last time we looked at statistics, one in three women in the United States will have reported being raped at least once by the time they reach fifty. The ratio of reported to unreported rape at the time was about 9 or 10 to 1, which means either something is very wrong with the stats or we have a lot of women hidden away somewhere.

We looked at the studies and realized that the difference is directly due to language. What 'women reporting rape' means to the police is different than what it means to women.

A few years later, right here in our own city, the sex crimes unit of the police department was completely gutted and rebuilt with all new personnel. They had been regularly reclassifying reported rapes as things like arguments, or even purse snatchings, and burying the paper work.

The same thing is happening all over. When interviewed, the lead investigator (who had recently retired) said that "…most of these women are lying. If anything did happen, they wanted it." He didn't even blush when he said it.

Any woman going into court faces exactly that attitude. Any woman looking out her front door does, too. It's not right, it’s not fair, and it is so outrageous that it’s difficult to believe.

And you're so right: it certainly does exist.


You would be passing up an opportunity to perhaps help someone, maybe yourself, should this particular evil pay a visit...
Do not doubt for a moment that every woman on the planet is visited by this. The basis of the primitive mating strategy is rape, and we all deal with that part of ourselves sometime in our lives.

The truth is, there is no woman alive that hasn't already been a victim of this. What determines what we call a female, 'woman' or 'girl', is often whether she's been exposed to it, and how much.

This eats at the heart of everyone alive. Nobody is immune.


…He still takes no responsibility...
In the same way that a woman is literally not responsible for what happens to her while another person inhabits her body and mind,

these guys are correct: they are not responsible for being human, and wanting to do things that are perfectly natural human behaviors, built in long before they were born.

It is literally not any man's fault that he is a rapist, any more than it is a woman's fault that she is a victim; it's our human heritage, hard as that may be to accept.

But we ADDers are free to rise above that, not just hold it at bay, but really put that part of ourselves away and never bring it out again.

And make no mistake about this: the role of men and women is set by the strategy itself, woman as victim, man as rapist. It's perfectly natural, but the male has a choice. The woman doesn't. It will never be equal, and any guy that expresses his natural primitive nature is lying about not being able to control it.

He is not lying about it not being his responsibility. But that just isn't relevant; he chose to do it, and it's his fault it happened. By definition, the woman wasn't even there.

I think guys get stubborn because it doesn't seem fair that women don't bear some of the responsibility. Too bad, jerkwad.


…You don't want to live this one yourselves…
With all respect (because you were lucky to survive, and most men are more careful about how they do these things), it's certain that every woman will experience this until we understand it in a way that allows us to stop it.


…I've been stunned…at the number of folks I continue to come across who've lived through the hell of a narcissist...
Calling them that is too polite, and looking for narcissism in men is too polite, too.

Every male is born with rape in his toolkit, and it will not stop being a problem for men until they take the responsibility for dealing with it.

But it doesn't have to be a problem for women. We believe that when women finally crack this mess open (as seems to be happening here) and it finally begins to see the light of day, men that are unable to let go of their natural primitive reproductive behaviors will literally die out.

In the end, this is a species issue, and we're going to define what comes next by what we do about this now. Rape is rape, and it is unacceptable.

Although I don't think we'll see narcissism disappear right away, I can't imagine it lasting too long after its source is gone. But lets go after the source itself, OK?


In so many ways it is yet one more issue in the life of an adult that is far too easily shot down by people who simply do not understand it…
Believe this, if nothing else: anybody that shoots it down does understand it. Like Kay says, it's everywhere.

You know it, your kids know it, the jerk on the stand knows it, the prosecutor, defense attorney, judge, everyone know about it. We have pretending built in, a protective barrier for the rapist that forces us to have long polite talks about stuff that really demands hard, harsh terms.

We're getting there, though. This whole discussion is intolerably rude by ordinary standards. Women aren't supposed to talk about avoiding men.

I like it…

…these people are not real. They present what is called a "false self."
I wanted to put this separately, because it's so important.

This is the literal truth of what happens, the idea that these people aren't real. The scientific understanding is complex and the implications a little unnerving, but it is well enough established that we can drop the quotes.

It really is a false self, and that seems to imply that there must be a real self. But there isn't, not in the sense that we usually mean real.

What there is, is a true self. (Get it? false self, true self…) The truth about 'selves' is that none of them is real; they're all just models in our minds.


What you're looking for is the person's true self, but if the person is clever (as is often the case), you might not be able to spot it.

However, you can reliably look for the inverse, whether the person you're looking at on that first date is not true, i.e., is false.

We only know one way to do that reliably, without regard for things like charm and cleverness and the ability to create the appearance of a connection. (We have come to truly despise that word…)


You have to step back, away from the emotional involvement (even if you don't see any) and look at the logic of the two of you being together.

Does it make sense? Would you expect the two of you to be there, at that moment, doing whatever it seems you're doing?

If you can see that being there was inevitable, and (especially) that something other than interest in each other brought your lives into contact, then you're probably safe.

However, if you have that heady omigod whatamidoing feeling, that's a pretty good indicator that something doesn't make sense.

That feeling itself is pretty interesting, because it always accompanies the process of changing yourself into something different without a good reason.

In fact, we don't know of a single valid example of that feeling. It is not the same as what you feel the first time you do something like skydiving, for example, or jumping off the high dive as a child.

It's a very particular feeling of shifting yourself, almost like watching yourself go outside your own boundaries arbitrarily, and do something that you can't quite believe; an external view of you.


This doesn't filter out people that are so screwed up that they seem narcissistic even when they are being true to themselves. But it defangs them as a group; the narcissists that are left after you weed out the false ones are relatively harmless, for the moment.

You'll see them change themselves into something false immediately if they decide to do anything more dangerous than drain you emotionally. Every male knows that taking that step involves presenting a false self, and the switch should be easy to spot, especially after you get to know a person.


This technique works, and it works by using your recognition of that strange feeling of being outside yourself against the thing that can cause it. That view is where you want to put yourself when you're looking to see if what's happening makes any sense.

You want to 'see' yourself and the path of your life from an external perspective, and Kay and I think that's exactly why the technique is so safe. Going into that state is a part of the primitive strategy built into all women, a key piece of the process of being forced to become a victim against your will.

We can use it to guard against the very thing it is intended to allow. We can go into that state at will, of course, just to look around and check on things, especially after we've experienced it once or twice and know what it feels like.

But if a woman does make a mistake, it's guaranteed that the first step will put her right there, where she can 'see' that things don't make sense, and that the guy is presenting a false self.

All it takes is getting in the habit of looking, and all that takes is understanding it and talking about it.

Some of you might recognize this; it's just the 'line of your life' stuff we've been talking about since we joined the forums. Maybe now it will make more sense to you.


…The truth is, they don't even know where the truth ends and the faking begins…
Only a woman could write that and mean it. It just isn't true.

Men know exactly what's going on, and even though some of them live false lives for so long that they lose track of what their true self truly is, they are completely aware of that fact that they are being false.

It's a strictly intentional and completely conscious act. I've been breaking the male code of secrecy about this since I was seven or eight, and paying the price. I don't care; it's too screwed up to live with, and there's far too many other problems built into the human male heritage to waste time with this stuff.

I know it's no consolation, but presenting a false self requires actually being that self, not just pretending. We pretend that these things don't happen to women, but when men do them there's nothing pretend about it.

And that drains a guy's soul faster and more permanently than anything that happens to a woman when he does it. The guys that live by this stuff are hollow by the time they're twenty, and completely empty by the time they're thirty.

I really don't know if they're redeemable after that. And I'm not sure I really care.

The "author" is a very well known narcissist, and someone who's words I would be very leary of. I believe it would take more than one or two dates to know this much about a person, and Vankin [the author] is smart enough to know this.

I am not saying there are no good points here, there are, but to make it a forum focal post is a narcissits dream. Vankin would love it!

-Viktoria
I admit to being rather fascinated by some of the writing of Sam Vankin. He uses hyperbole, his writing is all-over-the-place disorganized at times, but he gives us a rare look inside the mind of a narcissicist. He reveals who he is when he is seeking concealment and he thinks he is concealing who he is when he pretends to reveal.

But this instability of truth, does not mean that there aren't some valuable nuggets among the sifted sand.

I have know narcissists who are dangerous to others. I lived with one, my ex, who was a narcissistic sociopath. I have known narcissistic-type people who are really only dangerous to themselves. One is very dear to my heart.

I have the greatest respect for your opinion Viktoria, but I think that the essesnce of the link and text Ian posted is accurately to describes one type of guy to avoid. If he does not rape, pillage, or murder, he will be abusive in other -- sometimes devastatingly -- cunning ways.

Sounds like a book my daughter's and I should have the benefit of. Thanks.
Ian, I remembered the author's name. He is Gavin de Becker. His book was on the NYT bestseller list for a while.

Here is an amazon link:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0440226198/002-4059260-8543215

Kay and I have a definition of rape, the forced self violation of another person, in which we mean to imply both that the victim's self is violated, and also that the victim is forced to commit the actual violation.

A person's self is changed arbitrarily in this process. That's the murder of the soul thing in a nutshell, and it's real.

That is what sets it apart from all other crimes, and it doesn't matter a whit if there is sex involved. All that matters is a person is forced to make themselves into something they are not.

The common definitions of rape deal specifically with sexual assault which, however you want to slice it, has its own particular devastation. I have some problem with extending the definition to other behaviors because to do so would encourage people to think that abuse is abuse is abuse.

I believe there are many types and degrees of abuse, but a man who loses his temper at his wife and screams at her is not a rapist.


The correct view is that women have built in genetic 'defects' that allow men to make them do these things, violate their self model to construct what the male wants her to be.

If this is so and they are genetics, then they will be very difficult to change. I believe -- and much current research would support my belief -- that genetics trumps environment most of the time.

When women behave submissively to men, it is often for very realistic, basic survival reasons. This behavior is learned and not inherited. Even if parents try their best not to teach this response, culture will teach it.

I am a feminist. I tried my best to rear my daughter to be a feminist. I do not believe she is a feminist. She is a pragmatist. She sees the lay of the land quite clearly in this respect. She will be supporting no more musician fellas. Instead, she now expects her man to support her. Will she pay a price? Of course she will. We pay a price for all our choices. There is no perfect trade-off.



Coral Rhedd's daughter would have been in pain, but she wouldn't have felt responsible, and she certainly wouldn't have had to suffer from a poor self image.

There is no way that Coral Rhedd is going to accept the basic idea that her daughter is stupid as an explanation, and she is absolutely right in that.

Rest assured that I do not see you saying here that my daughter is stupid. :) In fact she is gifted and graduated from high school with no less than five advanced placements. However, I believe that my daughter has Aspergers, in addition to being untreated ADD. She is naive and takes many things incredibly literally. But she is beginning to understand that she can be easily fooled and manipulated. Despite her disabilities, I believe that anyone can be fooled by a practiced narcissitic sociopath -- even if they adopt your particular method of sorting the wheat from the chaff Stabile.


The problem we have with this advice in general is that the mechanisms in women that allow men to force them to change themselves against their will all seem like one of these little voices you should listen to.

No they don't. What you are referring to are cultural messages. There are also urges -- including sexual urges that pull and tug at us. I do not classify these as intuition or the more commonly referred to "trust you instincts." I do not believe that women are as helpless here as you would like to have us believe. But any mind that tries to parse conflicting messages can become confused.


I don't know this book, and some advice is sound. When we talk about recognizing the mechanisms by which women are 'got' and learning to avoid them, it ends up sounding a bit like this, too.

But we've seen books that openly encourage women to engage in what we recognize as dangerous activity, trusting their instincts in situations that lead women into trouble all the time.

De Becker's book is quite the opposite. For one thing, he correctly explains that orders of protection/restraining orders are often not worth the paper that they are written on. Women might be culturally conditioned to rely on the police, but de Becker encourages women to live in the real world.

I sent Ian this link to begin with so I need to weigh in here. I think there is some confusion as to what the real issue is. The problem was the title of the article itself. Yes, Sam is a well known narcissist himself. His expertise is in helping to identify and deal with THAT PARTICULAR TYPE OF ABUSER. I hope it is obvious to all of us that narcissists are NOT THE ONLY TYPE OF ABUSER. Sam has never claimed this. While the characteristics mentioned may well be applicable to other abusers, and yes, at times to non-abusers, they are alarmingly, definitely evident in narcissists. The fact that Sam is a narcissist himself has in no way damaged his ability to convey the truth about them. I know this from experience. I know this because I lived through a relationship with one of these monsters. Before it was over I was emotionally devastated, physically beaten into a concussion, partial vision loss, a ruptured disc, and on and on....Any of you who believe this cannot happen, or are concerned about stereotyping abusers (something that boggles my mind, actually) need to be careful. You are setting yourselves up as the perfect mark.

As far as a narcissist goes, this article did not begin at the beginning. I think the intention behind it was a good one, however. Frankly, if a cluster of these traits are recognized by you in another person within a short period of time, I can find no reason why you would not high-tail it in the other direction. The issue of trying to determine narcissism is irrelevant. Just get outta there poste-haste. If you're fortunate enough to do that, you won't need to deal with all of the other horror that comes when the negative parts of the narcissist come out of hiding.

One of the hallmarks of the narcissist, left out of this article, is his/her ability to suck you in with a charm and sweetness, a magneticsm, an intellect and wit, a sense of self-confidence, and an utterly deep connection with you...everything, in short, you've always wanted. However, these people are not real. They present what is called a "false self." The truth is, they don't even know where the truth ends and the faking begins. And they are not interesting in learning. They do not care one iota. I've had many life experiences but can say without a doubt that dealing with a creature such as this was one of the most horrific. Anyone I've spoken to who has personally dealt with a narcissist has said the same thing. In the wake of these people you are left humiliated, feeling utterly worthless, and completely positive that any intelligence you thought you may have had was but a farce. After all, any smart person would see this before it got out of hand, right? Well, months later I can tell you this......NO. Don't delude yourselves. A person with a heart and soul and conscience in tact cannot relate to the thoughts or behaviors of this type of individual. You can never really know them because they don't even have a real self. They change like the turning of a spicket. Therefore, not being able to pick them out is NOT a sign that you are inferior. They are different people depending on what they can gain in a given situation. You fill a need for a moment. You are a supplier of whatever it is that boosts their ego. They will do or say anything to keep you trapped. And again, they are smart enough to succeed in many cases. I'm not being melodramatic. I'm telling you the truth which can be found in other sources if Sam's work does not appeal to you.

Another point, narcisissts aren't drawn to weakliings. They are drawn to people who will represent a conquest. I have interviewed some of the most accomplished and intelligent men and women only to find that they have been utterly shattered by this abuse. There is a definite pattern to who these people go after. Honestly, it sorta made me feel better. I figured if they went for the brighter bulbs in the box it was a bit of a compliment. Believe me, if you ever find yourself in the middle of this nightmare you'll take what little positive you can get. It will not be much because for all but an eternity afterwards you will blame yourself for anything and everything merely because you feel you should have been smarter, you should have been quicker to see.....you should have been more than a human being....

I have no doubt that Ian posted this link hoping to help. I'm clarifying it only becuse I'm concerned that in the debate over different types of abusers, the reliability of the source etc... the issue of narcissism itself will be lost. It is a very uncomfortable topic of conversation for me. However, to assume the article is not dead on in its accuracy is simply to make a mistake that could well cost more than anyone ever wanted to pay. It nearly happened to me and I'm no dummy, so please hear me when I tell you, this is not a trumped up description of a character that does not exist. This is a dead on description of a particular abuser who can be, and often is, deadly.

There is not a sentence in the original article that I did not personally experience. I was, by the end, doubtful of my own ability to think and reason, completely sure that I was the idiot, positive I had no insight, and certain my prior life of independence was something I could not return to. I had become alienated from everyone who ever cared for me. This is but one of their tools. They take you out in a desert and leave you there lost. When he stalked and slugged me I was greatful. There was no way to justify that as the actions of someone who simply needed more understanding. There was no way to assume that I had done something to deserve it. You may find it difficult to believe you would think this way about all of the other abuse. Believe me, if it happens you'll sing a different tune. I had never been physically attacked before, and I was not going to tolerate it. I ended up in the hospital but had him arrested immediately. Charges, of course, were taken out against him and I followed through on those charges. However, in the meantime he took out 4 charges against me. I was still in the hospital at the time. They were four charges I didn't even understand. There was absolutely no basis for them and the police as much as said so. They were four charges that have now been completely dismissed and expunged. But they were four charges that required me to enter a jail, be booked and fingerprinted, and have a mugshot taken which shows a hugely swollen black and blue face, and one terrified woman slumped over in a wheelchair. Why did he do it? Because, just as is mentioned in Sam's article......nothing is the fault of a narcissist. Nothing. After he beat me he looked at me and said...and I quote..."LOOK WHAT YOU MADE ME DO." This is not a made up story, people. This was my life. Even during our court appearance he attempted to convince the judge his attorney was not doing her job. Are you hearing this?

Do not believe this does not exist. You would be passing up an opportunity to perhaps help someone, maybe yourself, should this particular evil pay a visit. I won in the end. He was found guilty and ordered to pay a hefty sum of money. He has already done it again to someone else. He still takes no responsibility. More important than any money, I learned. Do yourself a favor and consider this a lesson best learned vicariously. You don't want to live this one yourselves.

Do you remember how surprised you were to find a place such as this where all of the sudden you realized you weren't the only adult with ADD? Do you remember thinking, "Gosh, I can't believe how prevalent this is?" You may have known it logically, but to find others and interact with them brought a whole new understanding, right? Well, let me tell you, I've been stunned as I conduct interviews for a project, at the number of folks I continue to come across who've lived through the hell of a narcissist. In so many ways it is yet one more issue in the life of an adult that is far too easily shot down by people who simply do not understand it.

Peace.:)
This was a wonderful post free2bme. It provides a personal illustration of the behavior that Vankin describes in Ian's original post.

I am so sorry for what you went through. You must have felt like the whole world had gone crazy when you were arrested. But what is so important to us now is that you pulled through that terrible ordeal and are able to enlighten us now. :)

Stabile, I am wondering if I have misread at least portions of your post. If so, please let me know. In the meantime, I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with a fairly large portion of what you said.

Speaking about these things is made purposely difficult by the structure of language, even when they're your own personal experiences, even when speaking might save your life. That's why the few women who do get to court are already at a disadvantage. That's why the guy was able to get away with claiming he didn't do anything.
I do not believe that the structure of language is at all relative to this issue. I know for a fact that I was not at a disadvantage in court in any way, shape, or form. Certainly this is not true of everyone. But in those cases where women are at a disadvantage, the structure of language is hardly the reason. To tell you the truth, if X had thought of that he would likely have used it as an argument in his defense. Also, X didn't get away with claiming he didn't do anything. Did he attempt that? Yes. He was immediately shut down by the Judge and his own Attorney. It seems that to bring up something such as this poses a risk of taking us away from the real issue at hand.

The last time we looked at statistics, one in three women in the United States will have reported being raped at least once by the time they reach fifty. The ratio of reported to unreported rape at the time was about 9 or 10 to 1, which means either something is very wrong with the stats or we have a lot of women hidden away somewhere. We looked at the studies and realized that the difference is directly due to language. What 'women reporting rape' means to the police is different than what it means to women.
They're hidden across the street and across the hall. Even more common, they're hidden in the apartments on the other side of the tracks. They're hidden in bars, in mental health facilities. They're hidden in plain site. "Women reporting rape" are not misunderstood by those they report it to. Rape does not mean something different to a police officer than it does to a woman from the housing project. Ask the cop about his wife or daughter. I don't care what language structure a woman uses to convey it, police know what they're hearing. In many cases, the fact of the matter is they simply do not care. This is not the case universally by any means. In times where reporting is not correctly handled though, it has everything to do with the morality of the officer and nothing to do with language barriers.

A few years later, right here in our own city, the sex crimes unit of the police department was completely gutted and rebuilt with all new personnel. They had been regularly reclassifying reported rapes as things like arguments, or even purse snatchings, and burying the paper work. The same thing is happening all over. When interviewed, the lead investigator (who had recently retired) said that "…most of these women are lying. If anything did happen, they wanted it." He didn't even blush when he said it.
While this is hardly a surprise, there are but a few names for the reasons behind such activity....discrimination, prejudism, immorality, lack of ethics....those cause the chasm.

Any woman going into court faces exactly that attitude. Any woman looking out her front door does, too. It's not right, it’s not fair, and it is so outrageous that it’s difficult to believe.
I don't think every woman going into court faces this. Let me tell you this....my case received a bit of publiciy for a few unimportant reasons. The State's Attorney called and wanted to assist me, even hoping to upgrade the charges against X. This required that I have an interview with a Detective. My first contact with this Detective was via phone. He began like this...."Is X black? Are you black?" I was absolutely sickened to realize what I already knew all along was the truth. He would not have wanted to help me had I not been the person I was. In my case, this guy was eventually reprimanded strongly for such an attitude, and once he realized who I was he apologized profusely. However, the damage was already done. He showed his lack of character. He proved that had I lived in B neighborhood as opposed to A neighborhood he would not have cared. He showed that had I been black instead of white he would not have cared. He showed that had X been black and I white, he would have jumped all over it. He showed that familiarity with some aspect of a person gets you far in many cases where police officers are concerned. These are the issues that are WRONG. These are the issues that cannot be condoned. You're right in using the term outrageous, because it is. But it is outrageous in direct proportion to where a woman comes from. As a woman who "came from the right place" it bothered me deeply and continues to do so.

Do not doubt for a moment that every woman on the planet is visited by this. The basis of the primitive mating strategy is rape, and we all deal with that part of ourselves sometime in our lives.
I think this is a bit of a stretch. If you're talking about being victimized in general then yes, we are all visited by that at some point. I do not believe that every woman on the planet is met with abuse and/or rape. I also think it's a bit of an insult to the many admirable men who exist on this planet without having to fight some animalistic urge every waking moment to use the primitave mating strategy as an explanation for attacking someone. I hear where you're coming from, but I don't look at every male I see as a potential rapist, and I think it would be highly wrong to do so.

The truth is, there is no woman alive that hasn't already been a victim of this. What determines what we call a female, 'woman' or 'girl', is often whether she's been exposed to it, and how much.
I don't see it this way. And again, I do not believe that every woman is exposed to the behavior. Just as an aside, I continue to call myself a girl, particularly when I'm laughing out loud, or banging on my piano, or talking a mile a minute about an altogether exciting subject. Another thought, when a child is raped or otherwise abused, that child is still a child. That child is a child who has been robbed in the most horrific way, but a child they remain. It would not be fair to take part of their identity away from them along with everything their abuser already took.

In the same way that a woman is literally not responsible for what happens to her while another person inhabits her body and mind, these guys are correct: they are not responsible for being human, and wanting to do things that are perfectly natural human behaviors, built in long before they were born. It is literally not any man's fault that he is a rapist, any more than it is a woman's fault that she is a victim; it's our human heritage, hard as that may be to accept.
If this were true we would all be criminals of some sort. If we went back far enough in our own heritage, we would no doubt find horrific behavior. Does this mean that those who are of German descent are not responsible for murder because they may be in the line of Hitler? This seems dangerous to me as it could well serve to give abusers an excuse for their behavior. And not only that, but your next statement contradicted it at least as far as I can understand....

And make no mistake about this: the role of men and women is set by the strategy itself, woman as victim, man as rapist. It's perfectly natural, but the male has a choice. The woman doesn't. It will never be equal, and any guy that expresses his natural primitive nature is lying about not being able to control it. He is not lying about it not being his responsibility. But that just isn't relevant; he chose to do it, and it's his fault it happened. By definition, the woman wasn't even there.
Herein lies the key. And herein lies the contradiction. We are no longer animals. We are evolved, at least many of us. Responsibility is directly related to choice. If I buy a car I am reponsible to pay for that car. If I don't I will lose the car. Decisions, the cognitive functioning of our brains, cannot be overlooked. An abuser is responsible for an abusers actions. Period, end of story. How would murderers fit here? If a black man murders a white man is he not responsible due to the undeniale fact that he has had to wage war in order to achieve every small gain made in this society? Does their tribal heritage make them not responsible? I cannot fathom this at all.

I think guys get stubborn because it doesn't seem fair that women don't bear some of the responsibility. Too bad, jerkwad.
Guys getting stubborn is an understatement, but jerkwad will do...

With all respect (because you were lucky to survive, and most men are more careful about how they do these things), it's certain that every woman will experience this until we understand it in a way that allows us to stop it.
True, many women do not survive being attacked. I don't happen to think most men are more careful than X was, though. I think that, for all of the reasons above, most women are simply not helped. And this is an absolute travesty. To say it is certain that every woman will experience it is a far too wide picture to paint and simply not the truth. Again, if you're talking about being victimized in general, all humans will experience that, if only by way of their own perception. But it seems to me you're talking about abuse and rape specifically, and while any of that is too much, to say that everyone meets with it is just not correct.

Calling them that is too polite, and looking for narcissism in men is too polite, too.
Calling a narcissist a narcissist is not too polite when you understand what that term means to its deepest truth. Calling one anything else is too polite. As for looking for narcissism in men being too polite.....I think that to assume all men have the capacity to be evil monsters is a horribly unfair way to view them. I do not live my life that way. Actually, I feel it would be insulting to the three boys who own my heart were I to subscribe to the notion that they are, by way of their very gender, automatically past some point of no return.

Every male is born with rape in his toolkit, and it will not stop being a problem for men until they take the responsibility for dealing with it.
I thought you said they weren't responsible for it???

But it doesn't have to be a problem for women. We believe that when women finally crack this mess open (as seems to be happening here) and it finally begins to see the light of day, men that are unable to let go of their natural primitive reproductive behaviors will literally die out.
So, how did it become the woman's job to "crack this mess open" and eradicate the abusers from the planet? I don't understand this either. What women need to do is be themselves, make their own lives as best they can, live by the guideposts within their own hearts and souls, and if they themselves make poor decisions....take responsibility for those. Women do not need to solve the problems of the abusing and raping male. Men need to stop acting like heathans and use the brain that hopefully exists in the upper quadrant of their body. Furthermore, we would have to wipe out the enitire human species to eradicate the behaviors because many times, most times, they result from sick childhoods that pervade the fabric of families and are repeated and repeated into eternity. Also, not all abusers are male. Many a narcissist is female. There are females who hit and batter. There are females who kill. This is not solely confined to males.

In the end, this is a species issue, and we're going to define what comes next by what we do about this now. Rape is rape, and it is unacceptable. Although I don't think we'll see narcissism disappear right away, I can't imagine it lasting too long after its source is gone. But lets go after the source itself, OK?
This is a justice issue by the time we get to the terms abuse and rape. And the solution is to make absolutely certain that whether a woman comes from a homeless shelter or is the daughter of a politician her case receives the care that it deserves. The solution is to make rape and abuse of all human beings, by any other human being, bring with it a penalty that cannot be bargained or pleaded. The solution is teaching children anywhere and everywhere to value themselves and respect others. The solution is to fire police officers who are discriminatory and prejudiced. The solution is complicated because it requires every person to question their own views. It requires all of us to consider deeply who we elect, where we put our faith, our money, our time.

And as for narcissism.....the source will never be gone because for most, the source is the woman who gave birth to and raised them. There is a direct correlation between that particular relationship and the traits which define a genuine narcissist. And again, females are narcissists also. Narcissism is an entirely complicated issue. It cannot be done away with the way you describe. It will be done away with when human beings no longer exist.

You know it, your kids know it, the jerk on the stand knows it, the prosecutor, defense attorney, judge, everyone know about it. We have pretending built in, a protective barrier for the rapist that forces us to have long polite talks about stuff that really demands hard, harsh terms.
In my case the only one pretending was X. Even his Attorney approached me afterwards to apologize for the pain brought to me and my children. There are decent and honest people in our court systems. Not all of them pretend or deny. X did, but he got no where with that. The key to beating a narcissist specifically, is to break them with the truth. They can't win because they've lied so much for so long they do not even recognize what fact is.

We're getting there, though. This whole discussion is intolerably rude by ordinary standards. Women aren't supposed to talk about avoiding men. I like it…
I think it's an important discussion. I do not agree that avoiding all men should be a part of it, though. I am not looking for one myself at the moment, but I definitely don't assume they are all representative of the same lack of character X displayed. That would make me an unacceptably judmental person in my own mind. I do not ascribe to living life with fear and negativity and bitterness and resentment. When I meet anyone, I do not assume that they are good or bad. I let them teach me.

I too like that people are discussing such as this, though I definitely find it nerve-wracking. The source of this lies only in the fact that I do not know to whom I'm speaking, and internet communication has made me nervous as of late. Honestly, in my case, that's the one and only point of hesitatation. Still, some issues are too important to ignore. This is one of those. Again, if I misread your post please let me know.

[QUOTE=Stabile]Some of you might recognize this; it's just the 'line of your life' stuff we've been talking about since we joined the forums. Maybe now it will make more sense to you.

Only a woman could write that and mean it. It just isn't true.

Men know exactly what's going on, and even though some of them live false lives for so long that they lose track of what their true self truly is, they are completely aware of that fact that they are being false.

It's a strictly intentional and completely conscious act. I've been breaking the male code of secrecy about this since I was seven or eight, and paying the price. I don't care; it's too screwed up to live with, and there's far too many other problems built into the human male heritage to waste time with this stuff.[QUOTE]

Again, I disagree with you Sabile. To say that a narcissist knows when they're faking is to not understand what a narcissist is. Further, to say that my comment about narcissists not seeing the truth is one that could only come from a female implies much that is neither correct nor fair. I have heard the same statement from males who experienced these people. With all due respect, you are incorrect here. I will repeat the statement again....A true blue narcissist has no idea where the truth begins and the faking ends. This is because they have NO sense of a "true" self at all. I'm too exhausted to go through these two other posts word for word at the moment, but this is one area where, despite your obvious intelligence and insight, I have to say you simply aren't correct.

[QUOTE]
It's more likely that you didn't have the thought at all until the first time you reconstructed the memory of what happened. In a way, it's you explaining to yourself why what you think you did seemed to make sense at the time.

I am certain that Ohmama has her own take on this statement but it seems to me be doing exactly what you accuse abusers of doing: Trying to alter another person's sense of self.

When we attempt to tell someone what their memories are or how their memories are constructed, we are, in fact calling into question her statements about her reality. I think we must know someone really well to venture here.

Please remember how much recovered memories have been ridiculed by some who would like to call into question the testimony of victims of abuse.
We believe the truth of anything we perceive is what we can make sense of. What happens during rape has purposely selected over thousands of years to not have any sense at all, in the conventional way we think of things.


'No' doesn't mean 'no' because it doesn't mean anything; in order to rape, a person must go beyond the social context in which meaning itself is defined, to circumvent the meaning in what is being done to the victim.

No means no. This redefinition of commonly used terms implies that every difference can be reduced to a matter of what words are chosen to describe experience. I don't think that that is what is happening in this discussion. I think there is a valid difference of opinion going on.


In the usual circumstances, a person reconstructs an idea about her self and her experience that includes reasons for what she 'did'. The trick is, there is no reason, and 'she' didn't do anything. If anything of note happened at all, it was to someone else, temporarily constructed by her from her own mind and body under duress.

Could you please clarify what you are referring to in the above statement. Perhaps a plainer approach to language would help us all understand your POV better.
Weird, isn't it? The thing is, this is a literal, scientifically supported interpretation of what happens.


The deep primitive mechanisms are essentially a kind of 'off' button for a woman's self model, because they allow a male to take her outside the social context just long enough to make the changes that will cause her to reassemble herself in a form more to his liking.

This is what predatory murderers do. They use the victim for sexual and power gratification in ways that can never be accomplished in the context of a relationship. They rehearse their actions, they ritualize the violating act itself so that if affords them the power they are seeking, and sometimes after their victim's death, they actually pose the body to illustrate their power over the victim and, by extension, over the police.

If that seems devious, realize that it's entirely in keeping with the general sense of desperation rampant in the single male world.
You may perceive men as desperate, but it does not make those who resort to violation any less culpable for their actions. To excuse them is to shred the fabric of those elements of culture that are important to conserve. When you set out to rebuild Rome, it sometimes makes sense to keep a few buildings. :rolleyes:


As consciousness, self-determination, and the appearance of free will became the norm after the invention of complex abstract language, the primitive mating strategy was squeezed into an increasingly strange form that includes areas of our personal universe that are blank, what Kay and I call 'black holes'.

There may be many reasons why freewill is limited, but before I could agree with you that "primitive mating strategy" is even one of these, I would have to see a much clearer definition of what it actually is, than (to my knowledge) you have currently given. For all I know, I might agree with much of what you have to say, if only you would more directly say it. :)

So far all I can glean is that you say the primitive mating strategy is rape. While I think this is an especially dark view of human history/prehistory, I don't see any reason to believe that it still must be. After all, we do evolve.

I do not believe many rapists are merely using a mating strategy. They need not strategize except to escape the consequence of their acts. They need only use force. No strategy necessary.


Or, you can do what Kay and I did, and dive right into the whole mess.

Sometimes I'm amazed we managed to come up again intact, and I can't recommend it.

Besides, it's not necessary. Kay is fond of saying we did that so others won't have to, and she's right. There isn't any reason to go under and try to make sense of all the debris, because it isn't really yours anyway.

If you wish us to extrapolate from your personal experience, you would have to provide us more direct information about that experience, although, as different people, your's and Kay's experience cannot possibly be exactly the same. ;)


In the end, it turns all out to be a d*** safety mechanism for the rapist. He takes a quick chance on doing this little trick that is about self-definition, not sex, and if it works, he's got a woman that wants to do what he thinks is fun. Who cares what damage she does to herself while doing it, right?

If it doesn't work, it's no biggie. It wasn't about sex at all, and the worst that happens is he gets written up for inappropriate behavior.


Please see your words above. If it wasn't about sex, wasn't it about violence and, by extension, power.

The defect label is meant to be taken lightly. But it certainly exists, regardless of whether you wish it so. I am sorry. It's not my idea, and I would abolish it if I could.
If it is so adaptive (if it exists), how can it be a defect. Mutations are defects. Behavior traits that are nonadaptive are defects by definition.

Even if we have to leave men behind. (grin…)
Aren't you a man? :p

Then surely you are not the only one in existence evolved enough to be worth mating with.

There is something rather puzzling to me about your feeling about your own sex.

I also don't think women would necessarily end up happily mated if their main strategy were to look for the cad in every man.

I believe there are many types and degrees of abuse, but a man who loses his temper at his wife and screams at her is not a rapist…
Exactly, and exactly why we see the formal definition changing.

Yelling at someone is not rape. But if a man screams at his wife as part of a pattern of behavior that seeks to force her to change her internal model of her self, the template of primitive behavior all of us are born with, then that is rape.

The problem is one of defining why rape is so much more devastating to the victim than other crimes, like simple assault.

If you look around a bit at what the people working on this are talking about in the last few years, you'll see a completely different definition evolving, one that avoids the problems that arise when we were simply saying that rape isn't about sex.

Remember, we're not talking about the legal definitions, as in what crime is committed under the law. That always lags the real world.


If this is so and they are genetics, then they will be very difficult to change…
We don't need to change the genetics. We need to supercede it.

The problem is not that primitive behaviors have managed to select for so long, but what has selected to allow them to continue to flourish to this day.

As we humans have gained a modicum of free will and self-determination, the primitive behaviors that contradict those principles have managed to find ways to hide.

(It's all purely accidental, of course; there's no intent or purpose in selection itself.)

The problem has been one of escaping the process somehow. Whatever selected to allow the development of our current ideas about our selves and our personal freedoms took the same route as the mechanisms that hide the ugliness of the primitive strategy. We couldn't get away from them.

Now we're at a turning point, because the things that are happening to us that create AD/HD in the population are not like the process that would select yet another more sophisticated disguise for the primitive strategy.


I believe -- and much current research would support my belief -- that genetics trumps environment most of the time…
We don't see that kind of consensus in the research community at all, quite the opposite, in fact.

But it doesn't really matter.

The understanding of the function of the brain needed to even address the question intelligently is exactly the same as it is for AD/HD, and the current state of the art is just beginning to see the problem, not even close to getting an understanding of it.

Our research popped out a funny answer to this, essentially mooting the whole nature-nurture question. Most of what you consider to be characteristics that make you and those around you identifiably human are not passed through the genes themselves.

Instead, there is an incredibly precise external mechanism that (in part) we recognize as the enculturation and socialization process, but extends to much more. This mechanism is only beginning to be recognized, although we saw research done at the University of Pittsburgh in the Sixties that addressed some of it.

What stopped the guy from Pitt cold was not being able to plug what his research identified into a reasonable model of the brain. We were looking at exactly the same problem in our research into human communications.

Things have come a long way since then, but the research community is still just beginning to put the pieces of the puzzle about the brain together. Kay and I are about five or six years ahead of the pack in this area.

Sometime in the next ten years, someone will probably resurrect the Pitt research and the whole thing will take off.


When women behave submissively to men, it is often for very realistic, basic survival reasons. This behavior is learned and not inherited. Even if parents try their best not to teach this response, culture will teach it…
Yeah, but so what? The problem is not that it's taught, but rather that you can't stop it.

Think of it like this:

- the genetic mechanisms act to give you two different realities, and to keep you from ever realizing that;

- one is where you were when you wrote your post;

- the other can pop up at any time, and in it, you might think running off with the neighbor's husband seems like a fine idea;

- every male is born with the innate ability to push the buttons that cause that switch.


Think about this, too: all of the behaviors associated with the female version of the primitive strategy are about survival, exactly what you said.

Not one single impulse or behavior is associated with pleasure or pleasure seeking, except some extremely weak associations with behaviors that typically occur after everything's over. (We actually consider these to be corruption of normal self-integration behaviors.)

(In fact, part of the bag of tricks associated with male reproductive strategies is a mechanism that gives men two different measures of pleasure, one for sexual activity associated with the modern strategy, and another associated with the primitive strategy.)

(The one associated with the primitive strategy has selected to be incredibly short and not very satisfying. It's the primary cause of male sexual dysfunction not due to physical problems.)


I am a feminist. I tried my best to rear my daughter to be a feminist. I do not believe she is a feminist. She is a pragmatist. She sees the lay of the land quite clearly in this respect. She will be supporting no more musician fellas. Instead, she now expects her man to support her. Will she pay a price? Of course she will. We pay a price for all our choices. There is no perfect trade-off.
Right, so lets avoid trade-offs entirely, then.

Lets take the whole system down, and put up something that makes sense. To be sure it's fair, let women define all of it, and control it after the fact. Then, if you want, you can share the control with someone you love.


…anyone can be fooled by a practiced narcissistic sociopath -- even if they adopt your particular method of sorting the wheat from the chaff…
Nope, there's something different about what we're talking about, and the problem is words don't have the dimension to describe it explicitly.

But the mere fact that the discussion is underway is a sure sign that you all are experiencing the thing that is different in Kay and me, that let us decipher the conflicting nature of the two human reproductive strategies.

Think about it this way: if you can see that you can be fooled, you can see yourself being fooled. All you have to do is look. And the things that allow you to be fooled depend on you not seeing them at work.

That's why I keep saying we’re not stupid, because when you're looking right at them, you'll laugh out loud and marvel at the fact that it's so obvious. And, it's everywhere. We know this from experience, and we also know the transition might be a bit rocky.

The truth is, all you have to do is look, and the whole thing breaks. But what you see is scary, just what you said in your post, "…anyone can be fooled by a practiced narcissistic sociopath."

And we’re all selected to have an aversion to the view, too, so seeing the process at work is a doubly troubling experience. The aversion is how the black holes work, the way that the two contradictory patterns of behavior are hidden from each other.


...What you are referring to are cultural messages. There are also urges -- including sexual urges that pull and tug at us. I do not classify these as intuition or the more commonly referred to "trust you instincts." I do not believe that women are as helpless here as you would like to have us believe. But any mind that tries to parse conflicting messages can become confused.
I wouldn't argue with most of that, because there's no point. We’re obviously talking about all of it, because that's what you rely on to make a decision, and we’re talking about you making a decision. Sometimes a good decision, sometimes a bad decision.

But the last bit is exactly what we’re on about. Conflicting messages = ambiguous data, and resolving ambiguity is at the heart of what is different in ADDers, as compared to normals.

The correct version of your last statement would be something like, "… any normal mind that tries to parse conflicting messages can become confused." But our ADDer minds can resolve the confusion easily, and all we have to do is learn to recognize when and how to turn on that ability.

That's what we’ve been talking about, but there aren't any good common descriptions of the process, so we have to use uncommon descriptions.

Read through our last few posts, and you'll see the different ways that we’re trying to describe two things: the problem with getting past the emotions associated with seeing these things in ourselves and others, and (mainly) the difficult to describe experience of seeing 'above' the problem, so the ambiguity is resolved.


...For one thing, he correctly explains that orders of protection/restraining orders are often not worth the paper that they are written on…
Does he explain it, or only describe it? We can explain it, and it's really a difficult piece, because it involves being able to establish a mechanism by which police (for example) can be perfectly honest and serious about enforcing restraining orders, and then fail to do so, while still remaining exactly as serious and honest about their effort.

That's the male version of the two different realities I described above, and they are just as frustrated about it as you are, even though it stems from the same primitive mechanisms that cause the problem in the first place.

(The biggest b**ch about this stuff is that it sometimes makes you benevolent towards people you want to hate. Oh, well.)


…de Becker encourages women to live in the real world…
But please realize that real isn't good enough, and some men urging this are trying to keep women from getting away.

We have to supercede the old realities, because they are all about creating the opportunity for these things to happen.


****

BTW, Kay is tied up with the state licensing survey of her facility for the next few days. She should be back putting her two cents in by the weekend.

--Tom

This is getting good.