Sanctuary for the Abused
Saturday, January 29, 2022
PERSUASIVE COERCION
A Chapter from THE PERFECT VICTIM shows some of the methods. If you read this, you will see how some of these things can be done to an abuse victim psychologically, emotionally, verbally or morally to use mind-control and 'hold the victim' in the relationship by abusers. It does not necessarily have to be physical torture. WARNING: POSSIBLY TRIGGERING
THE MACHINERY
Instead, she would have to base her questions on a hypothetical situation. She asked the doctor to assume certain facts, then meticulously outlined the elements of Colleen Stan's first six months of captivity: the kidnap, hanging, whipping, imprisonment in a box, deprivation of food and light, lack of hygiene, dunking, burns, and so on.
"Now, Doctor," she concluded, "assuming those facts, based on your experience, training and education, do you have an opinion as to whether those facts are sufficient to coerce a person?"
Papendick promptly objected to the hypothetical. He was overruled.
Dr. Hatcher said the facts "would be sufficient to coerce the majority of individuals into a desired behavior pattern and to give up any overt resistance."
McGuire then asked: "To ‘break’ a person is that the same thing as coercing a person?"
Hatcher said the term, accepted within psychological literature, usually referred to "techniques initially developed by the Soviets and Chinese to establish coercion [to, a degree that] you are able to extract a behavior or a confession, to the point at which a person essentially gives up their overt resistance and will do what you ask them to do."
"Is that what we're talking about here, given those sets of facts?"
"That's correct."
McGuire then asked the doctor if there were specific steps, which could be followed to break a person. Dr. Hatcher began an explanation so closely related to Hooker's treatment of Colleen Stan; everyone in the courtroom seemed to lean forward to listen. The first step, he said, is a sudden, unexpected abduction, followed by isolation as soon as possible. "Refuse to answer questions, place them in a cell-like environment; remove their clothes, and begin humiliation and degradation."
1. Later, it was clarified that these were more accurately "techniques" rather than "steps." Dr. Hatcher pointed out that not all the techniques need be applied, and they needn't be applied in any particular order. "The degree and intensity" of application of these techniques is "so variable that you could take three or four of them and, with particular individuals, achieve the result," he said.
Asked to apply this first step to the hypothetical example, Dr. Hatcher said: "We have an individual who is initially in a situation in which the average person would feel somewhat comforted, in that it is a family in a car with a small child. The captor then not only displays the knife, the first point of danger, but rapidly puts a device upon the head which is beyond the realm of most people's experience or ability to comprehend, so the degree of isolation imposed would be greater than, for example, a kidnapping in which someone puts a bag over their head or pushes them down in the seat and says, 'Don't look up. Don't ask me any questions.'
Dr. Hatcher went on to explain that a cell-like environment stimulates a feeling that one's worst fears are being realized, raising the level of fear and anxiety. Removal of clothes magnifies the feeling of vulnerability.
The second step in breaking someone, the doctor continued, is to physically or sexually abuse the person, to expose the captive's vulnerability and shock her or him. "In other words, not only has the victim been stripped of their clothes and placed in a physically vulnerable position, but you are going to whip or abuse in some other way, specifically with sexual manipulation, to illustrate just how exposed and vulnerable they really are."
Applying this to the hypothetical, Dr. Hatcher cited the sexual manipulation, and the exposure in terms of hanging and whippings, in which there is no perceived way of escape.
"The third step is extremely important," he said, "and that's to remove normal daylight patterns. All of us, both biologically and psychologically, are used to a certain day and night kind of sequence, and this has been well-documented in various types of scientific literature." Removing this, either by placing someone in a constantly lit or constantly dark environment, "is very disorienting, and is a rather standard part of the techniques employed."
The blindfold and boxes of the hypothetical, of course, accomplished this purpose excellently.
The fourth step, Dr. Hatcher explained, is "to control urination, defecation, menstruation, and to be present when these activities are performed. Basically, what you want to do here is destroy a person's sense of privacy."
He also pointed out that "if a person soils himself, and isn't able to clean that up, the sense of shame 'in sitting or lying in their own waste product is really quite extraordinary, and individuals become very motivated to do what they can to get permission to clean themselves up. Most people have not had the experience since being a small infant, of sitting or lying in their waste product over a period of time. It takes you back to a period of vulnerability."
The fifth step is to control and reduce food and water. Hatcher stated the obvious: "If you don't get that food and water, you are going to die. So, on the one hand, they may be torturing you and preventing you from leaving, but on the other hand, they are bringing food and water." This helps make the captive dependent upon the captor.
The sixth step is to punish for no apparent rhyme or reason. Initially, the captive tries to figure out some rationale to the intermittent beatings but, finding none, eventually has to simply accept that punishment will occur with no reason.
The seventh step is to "require the victim to constantly ask permission for anything or any behavior. This would involve asking permission to be able to speak to someone, permission to take a tray of food. It is a type of training procedure."
The eighth step is to establish a pattern of sexual and physical abuse. This "indicates to the person that this is what their new life is now going to be like." It's a way of "getting the person to realize things have changed in a permanent sense."
The ninth step is to "continue to isolate the person. The captor has now become the source of food, water, human contact, as well. That's important information, as well as pain. All of us are information hungry people. If you put us in a restricted environment without newspapers or magazines or television, that's real nice for a while, but if it happens [that] you are totally cut off and weeks pass, all of us get a little hungry to find out what's going on.
"Cut that off and tie it to one person. Being a source of information is extremely important. As well as human contact the captor has a tremendous amount of power because he's the human being that you see, he is that only point of contact."
During his explanation, Dr. Hatcher spoke clearly, usually addressing himself to the jury. He wasn't a man of few words, yet no one yawned.
McGuire next asked how someone might learn the steps of breaking a person.
Dr. Hatcher listed three sources: the study of psychology; the law enforcement and military forces of "countries who have a rather low regard for human rights"; or, the most common, sadomasochistic and bondage and discipline literature.
"How are people initially attracted to this S/M and B and D literature?" McGuire asked.
Hatcher's answer must have been more interesting to Cameron Hooker than to anyone else in the room. He'd surely never heard himself explained so clearly.
"The consistency is rather interesting," Hatcher said. About the time of puberty, a boy finds himself stimulated by images of people being tied up or tortured. "It's initially extraordinarily disturbing to them. They tend to feel there's something wrong with them." And so this is suppressed; they don't talk about it.
Instead, they eventually find S/M and B&D literature, which also isn't talked about. "But the impulse and stimulation of this after a while just becomes more than they can keep to themselves," so, at an older age, the boy perhaps approaches girls, showing a picture and saying, "Would you like to try something like this?"
"The literature provides the stimulation, which doesn't cause the behavior, there's no mistake about that," but it also shows "how you can hang someone up, how you can put them in certain types of positions of torture, how it's been done before."
Now McGuire wished to introduce some of Cameron Hooker's S/M and B&D literature. Papendick objected, and again, the jury was excused while the two counsels argued about the relevance of Hooker's collection of hard-core pornography.
Judge Knight finally ruled that "any literature that either has instructions or rules or suggestions on captivity and any literature that contains ideas that were communicated by the defendant to the victim is admissible."
With the jury ushered back in and Dr. Hatcher again on the stand, McGuire introduced another of her impressive exhibits: an enlarged reproduction of the graphics for an article in the June, 1976 edition of Oui magazine, entitled: "Brainwashing: How to Fold, Spindle and Mutilate the Human Mind in Five Easy Steps."
If the jury had thought McGuire a prude, taking umbrage at Hooker's prurient interests, the colorful illustrations before them now presented an interest less in sex than in control. While provocative and lurid, the drawings depicted the "five easy steps," which McGuire asked Dr. Hatcher to review. (LLG was very interested in control.)
As Hatcher pointed out, it wasn't necessary to read the article, written by the Harvard-trained psychologist, Dr. Timothy Leary,' to understand the "five easy steps." The pictures were sufficient:
Step one: "Seize the victim and spirit her away."
Step two: "Isolate the victim and make her totally dependent on you for survival."
Step three: "Dominate the victim and encourage her to seek your recognition and approval."
Step four: "Instruct the victim and re-educate her to think and act in terms of your ideology."
Step five: "Seduce the victim and provide her with a new sexual (or moral) value system."
The scene in the courtroom was now a weird tableau: the thoroughly dignified Dr. Hatcher, in his somber, dark suit, surrounded by poster-size pictures of the slavery contract, of the basement, of the rack, of the Oui illustrations, and of Colleen, stripped and hung. And still, the heavy bed and box occupied much of the courtroom floor.
(It doubtless required great restraint on the part of the jurors to be confronted with such images and information day after day, yet never discuss it. Every time court was adjourned, the judge asked that they please remember the "admonition of the court" and refrain from reading about, talking about, or viewing programs about the case. They bottled it up and took it home, without disclosing what they'd learned even to their spouses.)
Some of Dr. Hatcher's testimony, while phrased in academic language, was explicit-shocking. For instance, he said that places where, a customer can rent sado-masochistic paraphernalia and perform various acts on a prostitute, which Colleen had described as, Rent-a-Dungeon," actually exist in cities such as New York, San Francisco, and Los Angeles. And he briefly analyzed a selection of articles from Hooker's library, including such literary gems as "Captive Maid...... Sex Slaves for Sale," and "Actual Case Histories of Sexual Slavery."
McGuire asked Hatcher if, in addition to the nine he'd already outlined, there were other coercive techniques.
There were, and the psychologist related these now.
The tenth technique, he said, is to "present a goal or a model... of future behavior, a model of how to please the captor."
The eleventh is to threaten family and relatives with a similar fate.
The twelfth is to threaten to sell the captive to an even worse master.
The thirteenth is to continue to beat and torture the captive at irregular intervals.
The fourteenth, called "irrelevant leniency," is to allow small privileges for no reason, making the captive more confused and more pliant.
The fifteenth is to obtain further confessions and signed documents, having the captive give over more and more control in writing.
And the sixteenth and final technique is to incorporate new behavior goals. Dr. Hatcher pointed out: "It's enormously time consuming to carry out a successful coercion. It takes a lot of time, a lot of thought, a lot of energy, and people have difficulty doing that over a period of time. They have to attend to other processes of life, and I'm speaking of the captor. So, you need to establish some type of pattern where you won't have to be constantly physically monitoring this person." Some ways to do that are to allow the captive to tend to personal hygiene, allow clothes, some privacy. And, Hatcher explained, it's important to permit the captive some degree of freedom, without the captor's constant presence, and then suddenly appear, giving the captive a feeling the- captor is omnipresent.
Dr. Hatcher added, "There are many historical examples where slaves not only outnumbered their masters in terms of manpower but also had the opportunity to attempt an escape, and yet that's done in only a very small percentage of cases." The significance of this surely wasn't lost on the two black members of the jury.
With these sixteen coercive techniques understood, and with Hooker's research into coercion presented, McGuire returned to her nearly forgotten hypothetical.
Again, she asked the psychologist to assume certain facts, then outlined the conditions under which Colleen was kept during certain periods-the next six months, the next year, then each subsequent year. At the conclusion of each period, the doctor enumerated which of the coercive techniques had been applied during that time, giving special attention to important aspects, such as the slavery contract and the story of the Company.
Dr. Hatcher shed illumination on Colleen Stan's darkest hours. He took the components of her captivity-the workshop, the "attention drills," the slave name, the slave collar; the box and distilled them into elements of power and control.
Even the freedoms that Colleen was later allowed-to brush her teeth, shower, wear clothes-the doctor explained as giving the person some remnants of self-esteem, with the reminder. "If you displease me, I can remove any shred of personal privacy or personal identity, with the exception of what I have chosen as your slave designation."
As the prosecutor continued with her hypothetical situation, Papendick fidgeted. He objected to each stage of her hypothetical, but the judge consistently overruled his objections.
Commenting on the captive's being allowed to do new activities in new settings where other people are present, the psychologist said, "the fact that these situations do not result in discovery" or in anyone interfering, "begins to reinforce, in the majority of captives' minds, that this is the way life is, and they are going to have to accept that."
Dr. Hatcher also commented on the gift of the Bible: "Part of Christianity emphasizes that you are going to suffer and that God will provide, that no matter what type of disaster or terrible situation may befall you, if you maintain your faith in God, God will get you out of it. Some captors use a religious tract, they want to assist the captive along the pathway of believing they should have faith in God, and that God is really part of all this, that this is not alien from Christianity. It incorporates [the captivity] within the framework of what's normal and serves often to make the person more religious. The sad part is that it does make the captive easier to control."
It seemed a shame that Colleen Stan couldn't hear this. Instead, Cameron Hooker, along with the rest of the court, was treated to an educated view of what made him tick.
Addressing himself to periods of greater freedom allowed the captive, Dr. Hatcher undertook an explanation of the captor's motivations: "The main thing here is that the captor is not necessarily an individual of extraordinary intelligence. He doesn't necessarily have to have a comprehensive kind of knowledge as; for example, Dr. Leary might have in constructing the article we talked about before. What comes across consistently, however, is that the person, to some extent, has a feeling that is like a hunter. Think of the person in your acquaintance who is the best hunter. It usually isn't the chief executive officer of the bank, a person who has a very high degree of status. It's a kind of sense or skill that makes them a particularly good deer hunter or duck hunter a certain amount of patience.
"The analogy drawn for me by the individuals I have interviewed is that they see themselves in a similar way as a hunter.
Initially, they are concerned with the stalking and the capture. Then, rather than killing the prey, they see how far they can train this person.
"After a while, curiosity sets in to see just how far he can let this person go and still have control. There is a certain risk or gamble there, but [this is outweighed by] the value or degree of enjoyment and satisfaction, the sense of being able to hunt with higher stakes. The gratification from being able to allow the person contacts with outside people and still know that you have enough coercion and pressure upon them, that's an extraordinary reinforcement and overcomes some of the other concerns about apprehension."
One couldn't help but wonder what Hooker thought of this.
Dr. Hatcher's direct examination took nearly two days.
He seemed to sort through every aspect of Colleen's captivity and place it in context: The "love letters," he pointed out, were consistent with types of statements in S/M literature, and it was common to have the captive echo the captor's belief system. He reviewed the letters, citing Colleen's repeated references to her position as a slave.
Still posing a hypothetical situation, McGuire asked if the doctor could account for the calls and letters to the captor and his wife.
"There is a great deal of dependency upon the wife in the situation you've described," Dr. Hatcher explained. "It's not as if there was a relatively rapid, clean escape without having the possibility [the captor might come after her]."
By talking with the captor, yet experiencing that this doesn't result in being put back in the box, "the person gradually begins to feel they have a greater degree of control, that they have reestablished themselves somewhat."
Further, the psychologist said, it's common that captives, once free, express the idea "that they want to let God or someone else take charge of retribution or punishment," and he quoted sections of Colleen's letters to Cameron and Jan saying, for example:
"I don't want to play God and I forgive you and Cameron for all things." Additionally, Hatcher said, victims are often averse to pressing charges because criminal proceedings would force them to relive the experience.
Hatcher made comparisons with several other cases in which the victims were "mentally restrained," fearful of attempting escape, and then, once free, reluctant to go to police. These cases shared many elements in common with Colleen Stan's, but by the time the psychologist concluded his remarks it seemed clear that Hooker's coercion of Colleen had been uncommonly intense.
Dr. Hatcher said as much: "The circumstances as you have described them to me, with the possible exception of issues that go farther back in time (such as black slavery in America), would be unique in recorded literature. There would not be a similar situation in which this degree of captivity and of sado-masochistic torture of a human being had existed in a previous case."
After nearly twelve hours of eliciting expert testimony-an outpouring of information-the prosecutor at last came to the end of her questions, took her seat, and handed Dr. Hatcher over for cross-examination.
Defense Attorney Papendick opened by trying to belittle psychologists as opposed to psychiatrists (since the expert witness for the defense, Dr. Lunde, was a psychiatrist), but Dr. Hatcher's answer was so complete it seemed only to emphasize his competence.
Papendick persisted: "You are not a licensed physician, are you?"
"No, I am not."
"You are not an expert on the physical effects of diet control, are you?"
"No, I am not."
"Or the physical effects of lack of sleep?"
"I would have a degree of expertise in the physical effects of lack of sleep, but as it pertains to captivity."
McGuire was astonished that Papendick had retained Dr. Donald Lunde, the Stanford psychiatrist she had interviewed for the prosecution months before.
From here Papendick launched an extensive examination of Dr. Hatcher's experience in related cases, such as the Parnell case and the People's Temple and Jonestown. Though Hatcher's accounts of these were informative, they served more to showcase his experience than to discredit it and seemed far from the matter at hand. It was difficult to understand what Papendick was trying to get at. Judge Knight finally stepped in: "I fail to see the materiality of this rather detailed questioning about Jonestown. What are we getting to?"
Still, Papendick continued his questions about tangentially related cases, such as Patty Hearst and Korean prisoners of war. Since it was late in the day, McGuire privately wondered if he were simply trying to kill time so he could prepare overnight for the beginning of his case tomorrow.
At length, Papendick referred to the spectrum Dr. Hatcher had described: from persuasion, to coercion, to brainwashing. Specifically, he wanted to know at which point persuasion ended and coercion began.
The doctor naturally said there's a gray area here, and that, for example, some people would call a military draft persuasion, and some, coercion. But, he added, "A person in a captive situation against their will is in a coercive situation."
"In your opinion," Papendick asked, "can a person involved in a captive situation be subjected to persuasion?"
"Yes."
This was the answer Papendick wanted to hear. He brought up the example of a prisoner in a Nazi concentration camp having relations with a guard or officer. "Is that an example of persuading the person as opposed to coercing the person into a sexual type of relationship?"
Hatcher wouldn't grant those kinds of liberties with the term. He pointed out that, while there may not have been a specific beating or incident preceding the development of a relationship, the guard or officer was nonetheless perceived as a person in authority who had the power to protect the prisoner from torture or death.
Here the defense attorney asked Dr. Hatcher if he were familiar with the term "coercive persuasion."
The psychologist said the term had arisen in the 1950s, but had fallen from use and was no longer a common psychological term.
"Does coercive persuasion have a generally accepted definition in your field?"
"No, it does not." Dr. Hatcher explained that it had never gained general acceptance, and that it wasn't listed in the index of the American Psychological Association Psychological Abstract, or the Index Medicus.
Overall, Papendick seemed unable to take control of this witness. He unwittingly gave Dr. Hatcher the opportunity to further assist the prosecution when he asked: "What are the effects that one would expect to see in a coercive situation?"
"There are several," the psychologist said. "The most interesting one is a numbness of affect. You may, for example, ask someone to describe something related to their captivity, and they will describe something that is, by most objective standards, truly appalling, yet it is not expressed with a great deal of emotion. There is a flatness or blunting of affect."
The meaning of Colleen Stan's indifferent manner instantly clicked into place.
Hatcher explained another effect might be "intrusive images," something like nightmares in the daytime. McGuire hadn't asked if Colleen experienced this, but it seemed a reasonable guess.
A third characteristic, Hatcher said, "is that they want to try and get their lives back to normal. Before they can begin to deal with the images and impact of this, they have to put a great deal of effort into creating what is almost a veneer of a normal life. To have a job, to have some friends, to have some activities, is almost like a kind of teddy bear. It's a security, and they will work to do that before they start to go back and, in depth, deal with the problems they have had in their captivity."
To McGuire's mind, this fit Colleen perfectly. She wondered if the jury perceived this.
Papendick then switched to another line of questioning, and here he made headway. He asked Dr. Hatcher whether, in order to judge a person in a coercive situation, it would be important to know the person's background.
Hatcher said, "It would be contributory."
"What do you mean by 'contributory'?"
"Helpful, useful."
"Would that include social history?"
"All history."
"Social, family, marital, medical, sexual?"
"It would be useful."
McGuire's hackles went up. After having successfully countered Papendick's motion to admit the victim's prior sexual conduct, she was alarmed that Papendick might work it in. She only hoped it wasn't as glaringly apparent to the jury as it was to her that Papendick had uncovered some evidence about Colleen's past which he believed would help the defense.
But Papendick miscalculated when he handed a magazine to Hatcher and asked him to tell the court which of the sixteen coercive techniques it covered. He apparently remained unconvinced that Hooker's pornography collection could be used as instruction for coercion.
The psychologist promptly responded: "Page thirty-two in Captive Maid, we have sudden unexpected abduction."
"Which technique is that?"
"That's number one. Sudden, unexpected abduction. The isolation is begun as soon as possible. You begin the humiliation, degradation, sensory isolation. You remove the clothes."
"That's number one?"
"That's all number one. Fairly clearly, I think, both illustrated and in text. I can quote from the text if you like."
"No I just want to know what number techniques are included."
Dr. Hatcher then mentioned number six, creating an atmosphere of dependency.
"How is that illustrated in that article?" Papendick protested.
"Well, it's illustrated by saying whipping and degradation are always accompanied with sex."
"How is that dependency? Didn't you talk about that before as dependent for food and water?"
"You are also dependent upon the individual whether or not they are going to beat you anymore."
This clearly wasn't developing as Papendick had hoped. He snatched the magazine away and, to McGuire's amazement, continued with this line of questioning. He handed the doctor an article, which was, essentially, a pornographic movie advertisement, surely believing this illustrated no coercive techniques whatsoever.
The doctor appraised the article and listed techniques eight, nine, ten, and thirteen.
Still, Papendick didn't abandon this line of questioning. He handed Dr. Hatcher the article that accompanied the slavery contract. This was a mistake.
He'd given the prosecution's expert full rein, and Dr. Hatcher made excellent use of it. He listed techniques ten, sixteen, eight, and six, giving detailed explanations of how these were illustrated in the article.
Papendick seemed to realize his error in trying to fight Dr. Hatcher on his own territory and concluded this line of questioning by turning it to his advantage: "Are any of those sixteen techniques used by, say, the Marine Corps in boot camp training?"
Dr. Hatcher admitted that "some of the behaviors" were.
Completing his cross-examination, Papendick asked, "Do you know Dr. Donald T. Lunde?"
"Yes, I do."
"Would you consider him an expert in forensic psychiatry?"
"Yes, I would."
And with that, the psychologist was excused.
from: The Perfect Victim by - by Christine McGuire, Carla Norton
2. Dr. Timothy Leary expressed astonishment upon learning that his article had been introduced as evidence in the Hooker trial.
He said that, following the Patty Hearst case, he wrote the article "to warn people" how easily they could be brainwashed.
Though he said he had "nothing against things being sexy," he disavowed any responsibility for "those horrible illustrations," which he called, "disgusting."
Labels: abuse, battering, brainwashing, coercion, entrapment, lies, narcissist, programming, psychopath, seduction, sociopath
Monday, January 17, 2022
The Power of the Original Trauma Bond
** Warning: This post may be very triggering to the adult survivors of psychopathic/narcissistic abuse. Please use caution in reading**
While many survivors discover that their partners are psychopathic/narcissistic, many who come from childhood backgrounds of pathology, fail to realize that their parent is the foundation of the original trauma bond. They can leave partners, but continue to engage with the parent. This leaves the stench of pathology in their lives, and makes them vulnerable in continuing the bond into the future with another partner or other people who are pathological.
Psychopathic parents are as toxic, if not more so, than the psychopathic partner.
Trauma bonds to the source of origin (parent) are incredibly powerful and equally as challenging to break. I have broken the bonds with my psychopathic father and biological siblings, and without realizing any of this stuff about trauma bonds, I went no contact with them about five years ago now. Without the break in this bond, I undoubtedly would not have been able to heal completely. This bond was broken just a couple of years prior to my break with the last psychopath in my life.
The psychopathic parent is a ‘special’ kind of ‘crazy’. It’s amazing to me our perspectives when we see other survivors just out of relationships with psychopaths and how horrified we are at the antics of the psychopath when it comes to he and the survivor’s children, particularly if there are custody issues. We are horrified at his contempt and lack of empathy when it comes to his children and his ability to manipulate and/or abuse them. We are appalled at the terrorist-like attempts of the psychopath to undermine his children’s relationship with the survivor through triangulation, by hateful discussion, smear campaigns, triangulations and projections about their mother or using a new victim to separate mother and child. The list is long in how he can implement his tactics. While the survivor who sees these games played out with another survivor’s ex psychopath and children, even with her own, she fails to see this has also played out in her childhood and continues to play out with her parent as an adult. She fails to be as horrified at the antics of her parent upon her, as she is in witnessing it in others situations.
Her lack of appropriate reaction of horror at the actions of her parent, is an indication of how strong the trauma bond is. It has reached a level of extremes in normalizing the highly pathological and abnormal. The lack of reaction that would mean salvation via no contact is not even a consideration for many of these survivors. In my work with survivors of the psychopathic/narcissistic parent, the idea of no contact when presented to them is often met with a vicious or contemptuous response, filled with excuse, fear, obligation, guilt and denial.
The survivor with the psychopathic parent will inevitably, in most cases continue with the bond. The bond is so powerful and so intense due to a lifetime of cyclical abuse. Some of the very same abuses upon the survivor of a psychopathic parent, that are visited upon the survivor as long as there is contact, are the very same visited upon her in a romantic relationship or what she finds appalling in others. The psychopathic parent is manipulative, guilt inducing, degrading, demanding. They triangulate the survivor with siblings and other family members, creating competitions for the parent’s attention and love. Each survivor from these families plays a specific role, which I’ll be discussing in another post, but some of the most familiar roles are scapegoat, golden child and lost child. The scapegoat is the child who is often most sensitive to the parent and equally the most abused. The sins of the psychopathic parent are liberally employed upon the scapegoat and the roles of other siblings are encouraged (especially the golden child) to abuse the scapegoat as well. The scapegoat is usually the most sensitive of the family members and the most intuitive to the abuse. The psychopathic parent knows this and fears this child most because this child is the child who understands exactly what is going on and is most likely to ‘report’ it to others. Ironically, the scapegoat can be healthiest of the family and the psychopathic parent is aware of this. This child will be tested most in weighing the possibilities as to how they can be used by the parent. If the scapegoat does not go along with the ‘plan’ set up by the psychopathic parent, this child’s abuse will be the most extreme.
Even when the scapegoat goes along with the plan, the psychopathic parent still fears this child as the child cannot ‘pretend’ to the psychopathic parents liking, that she doesn’t know what’s going on. She always sees behind the mask and her pretentiousness is caught by the parent. Unfortunately, if the scapegoat manages to survive her childhood, her abuse will be manifested with disorders of her own, from personality disorders to complex PTSD. For the survivor who is gifted with awareness into adulthood in that she does not develop a serious disorder of her own, she will wrestle with her own empathy in her feelings of compassion for the parent and is the child most likely to take on care giving responsibilities, as well as continuing to take the abuse. Her exposure to such intense pathology also makes her vulnerable to more painful relationships with psychopaths into the future, from romantic relationships to friendships, the cycles continue, the desire to ‘repair’ the damage in a repetition complex, compulsive in nature.
Survivors who manage to escape psychopathic partners, initially believe that they have escaped pathology altogether, separating the parent from the inevitable acting out behavior and relationship choices she has made. There is no connection for her in tying her partner selection to the original trauma bond with the parent. In a very odd way, this makes the separation from the psychopath EASIER comparatively because she still has access to the familiar, to pathology.
If she cannot act out with a partner, the parent will continue to provide ample opportunity to continue the trauma bond and addiction to pathology through continued abuse.
There are survivors who have gone no contact with their parent, such as myself but continued pathology with a romantic partner. Again, the intensity and addiction to pathology is played out with her inability to separate from the partner. In these cases, the ‘bond’ to the partner is even stronger with the loss of the original trauma bond and the relationship loss can feel very devastating as the last intense bond is broken.
She can hang on, even though she wants to let go, eventually because the parent is not there to replace it.
Survivors still tied to the parent are extremely creative individuals. The excuses to hang onto the parent are wide and varied. The almost apologetic statements by survivors on behalf of the insidious and leveling abuse of the parent stands as symbolic to the depth of their denial. Like any psychopath, the parent knows that they have control in this child’s life and no matter how awful the abuse, the child will defend the parent to the detriment of herself and others around her who continue to see her in pain with each engagement with the parent.
There are not different ‘rules’ with the psychopathic parent, anymore than there are with the psychopathic partner. The tactics are the same and just as damaging upon the adult child. The adult child of a psychopathic parent becomes almost child like in her response to the parent, the ultimate authority figure in her life. She overlooks the obvious degradation and the feeling of a knife to her chest with the painful abuse, is almost cathartic, as it underscores what the parent has created for her in that she is a failure, that she is worthless. It is utterly and tragically familiar. The involvement with the parent is the attempt by the survivor to right the wrongs of the abuse, the hopeless and yet prayerful power of wishful thinking for change that will never come.
The adult survivor works every angle, forgives and forgets, while the trauma continues to build over years, cementing her obligation to the parent. The survivor, desperate (although rarely acknowledged) to change the status quo, will often suggest therapy with the parent, or try to find a way to make contact ‘bearable’ while still taking the abuse. The excuses a survivor gives for continued contact are obvious in her inability to let go: “I can’t abandon her/him!”, “There is no one else who will take care of her/him”, “she/he raised me alone! No one else was there for me but her/him!”, “She/he would fall apart without me. I feel sorry for her/him because she/he has no one else but me.” . . .and on and on the merry go round goes. . .
The problem with this is that much of what the survivor wants to avoid is abandonment by the parent, or has an exaggerated fear of what will happen to the parent should they let go, or what will happen to themselves if they do. They fear the parents rage and anger. They feel so sorry for the parents disorder that they are compelled to put up with more abuse. In all of this, the failure to see that no one deserves abuse, not even from a parent, is a foregone conclusion in these situations.
None of what psychopaths are all about and what they do, apply to the parent as far as this child is concerned. Much of this is subconscious, a pattern weaved into the adult child over a lifetime of exposure to pathology and abuse. We automatically act out our roles and are compelled to engage in them by an unspoken, unacknowledged force of extreme evil that wages war upon our high levels of sensitivity, empathy and compassion.
The psychopathic parent is no different than a survivor’s psychopathic partner. With each engagement the parent knows they have control over the survivor. They play their adult children like chess pieces and lack empathy for them as much as they do anyone else, there are NO EXCEPTIONS.
To the adult child of the psychopath/narcissist: Do you want to know why you are so afraid to acknowledge the truth about your Mom or Dad or both? About maybe even your siblings if they are disordered too? Because you know they don’t love you. This truth is the most devastating of all. Acknowledging this truth is the most painful experience you will ever live through. It will call into question your own person hood, your existence. My psychopathic father never loved me. Ever. Not from the day I was born, and not up to no contact. I could not let go because if I acknowledged the truth in that he did not love me, it meant I was truly lost, it meant that no one else possibly could, if the person who was my sperm and egg donor did not and could not love me.
It meant I was anchorless, without purpose and direction, as what is suppose to be the childhood foundations built for us out of LOVE by our parents. It called into question everything I lived. My entire life was a lie. A lie that my psychopathic family told about me and to me. I didn’t exist as a human being to them, worthy of love and respect. My foundation was built on sands washed away by every abusive tide. What in God’s name do you do when your foundation was not built on love from your parent?
This is what I can share with you. YOU are not the lie. YOUR existence is meaningful and your soul and spirit full of energy and love. You were born into a psychopathic family, a tragedy yes, but YOUR life is NOT. This very knowledge can set your feet upon a path of no contact and true and genuine healing, through and through. You are of the most courageous, loving, caring group having survived in a situation where you were NOT LOVED. Your psychopathic parent removed your choices that would reflect in adulthood, a healthy human being, a product of humanity built in a loving home environment. The key to your healing is no contact. The realization that you have the power of CHOICE as an adult to stop the abuse. The realization that you are worth more than continued exploitation by a psychopath.
Human connection is important, isn’t it? We all need this as a life giving source when it is expressed in love and care for one another. The psychopathic parent teaches us that human connection is merely for the sake of feeding off of others, to take, not to give. To act in hate and contempt, not in love. This is not you. This is not who you are. You are no longer a CHILD. You are NOT obligated to a very sick, strategically abusive individual. You are the psychopathic parents favorite target. You are endlessly exploited for the sake of the false glorification of the parent. You are the number one poison container. The psychopathic parent REVELS in their ability to hurt you, to get a rise out of you, any reaction will do. They live to harm you. Your importance to them is not found in what you want so much to believe in that you are loved, but rather that you are not. They know exactly what they are doing.
It is my opinion that a survivor cannot truly heal without going completely no contact with the parent. It simply is not possible. The roles we play are automatic, as in flipping a switch. When we are with them, we are ‘on’. We are not shut off until we are out of range of their targeting. When we get out of range, we obsess about what they said and/or did with the last engagement. We sound like gossipy ole ladies chatting across the fence to anyone who will listen to our martyr status with our parent. We subject ourselves to enabling others as we do our parent. Addiction is a very powerful force and you cannot engage in it in any way and consider yourself completely healed. I would like you to think about something if you choose to ponder the realities of this post: When you see another survivor struggling with her ex psychopath and what he is doing to her children, put yourself in the child’s shoes.
View this survivors ex as your parent. It is the SAME. Ask yourself, why am I appalled by this but not by what my parent is doing to me? Why am I not horrified by the abuse I have taken and continue to take? When you see a survivor in pain about what the psychopath is doing to her child(ren), what makes what your psychopathic parent is doing to you, so different? What is the cost of your involvement in being engaged with someone who does not love you, but is merely using you for their own personal pleasure in causing you further harm? Can you see what the affects of the psychopathic parents abuse is having on you, and others around you while you react to them? If you have children who are exposed to your psychopathic parent, is this what you want for your children to see in how your parent treats you and in how you react to it? Obsess about it? What ties can you connect from a past or current partner to the antics of your parent or anyone else in your life where enabling is allowed, where you fight with your empathy, where you fight with those who are manipulative, exploitive and abusive? Can you feel yourself slipping into the costume of the child in response to any of this, as you would your parent? Do you suddenly feel that, while in the presence of those who are abusive or manipulative, no matter who they are, that you are powerless? Voiceless? Listen to yourself. . .
I know these are hard questions. I know they will provoke anger, but for others they will provoke thought, and yet for others, it will hurt your heart. You are NOT a child any longer. You are NOT beholden to an abuser who cannot love, no matter who it is.
You will never have validation from the parent who created your existence biologically. Ask yourself why you believe this person loves you when it’s clear every time you engage that they don’t? The SAME principles apply to the psychopathic parent that they do ALL psychopaths. Your continued involvement makes you more vulnerable to future psychopaths. Healing from extreme childhood abuse must commence before any changes can happen into our future. This IS the original trauma bond. It must be broken before you can truly heal. The ultimate in re-victimizing yourself is the continued contact and abuse you take out of this person. Ask yourself why your psychopathic, ABUSIVE parent is the exception to the rule.
Putting into practice our awareness will only go so far while we still have abuse in our lives, especially from our parent. The danger in acting out in further relationships is there when we cannot cut ties to the parent. Engaging with the psychopathic parent is to keep the ADDICTIVE quality of the abuse GOING. We are literally practicing our addictions with anyone who is pathological.
Healing from pathology means to remove yourself from it long enough to see what your own behaviors are and have been in response to it. It is incredibly difficult, if not possible to change while engagement is still in active status.
Your psychopathic parent is not ‘different’ than all the rest. This person is the one who set you up to be abused in other relationships and to continue to take it from them. They don’t have a miraculous and just a ‘little bit’ of empathy for you. Hanging onto this belief, and the refusal to deal with and grieve the reality that this person does not love you and never could, hurts you more. Their inability to do so says NOTHING about you as a human being and the gift you were born with: empathy. Compassion for others.
I’m suggesting that you think about this. You don’t deserve abuse. Your parent will continue to apply it liberally to you and your life if you allow it. The no contact rule applies to the psychopathic partner for obvious reasons, as well as any past friendships, bosses, coworkers, children. It also applies to the parent.
I understand how painful it feels to integrate the reality of this into your heart. It is a pain like no other.
Your value and worth is not found in abuse, but a future free of it. Even if the abuser is your parent.
Onward and upward.
Note: This article also applies to men who are survivors of psychopathic women.
SOURCE
Labels: abuse, abusive father, abusive mother, adult children of narcissists, c-ptsd, empathy, envy, narcissistic, narcissistic father, narcissistic mother, narcissistic parent, psychopathic
Sunday, January 09, 2022
Common Reactions to Trauma
Edna B. Foa, Elizabeth A. Hembree, David Riggs, Sheila Rauch, and Martin Franklin
Center for the Treatment and Study of Anxiety
Department of Psychiatry, University of Pennsylvania
A traumatic experience produces emotional shock and may cause many emotional problems. This handout describes some of the common reactions people have after a trauma. Because everyone responds differently to traumatic events, you may have some of these reactions more than others, and some you may not have at all.
Remember, many changes after a trauma are normal. In fact, most people who directly experience a major trauma have severe problems in the immediate aftermath. Many people then feel much better within three months after the event, but others recover more slowly, and some do not recover enough without help. Becoming more aware of the changes you've undergone since your trauma is the first step toward recovery.
Some of the most common problems after a trauma are described below.
Fear and anxiety. Anxiety is a common and natural response to a dangerous situation. For many it lasts long after the trauma ended. This happens when views of the world and a sense of safety have changed. You may become anxious when you remember the trauma. But sometimes anxiety may come from out of the blue. Triggers or cues that can cause anxiety may include places, times of day, certain smells or noises, or any situation that reminds you of the trauma. As you begin to pay more attention to the times you feel afraid you can discover the triggers for your anxiety. In this way, you may learn that some of the out-of-the-blue anxiety is really triggered by things that remind you of your trauma.
Re-experiencing of the trauma. People who have been traumatized often re-experience the traumatic event. For example, you may have unwanted thoughts of the trauma, and find yourself unable to get rid of them. Some people have flashbacks, or very vivid images, as if the trauma is occurring again. Nightmares are also common. These symptoms occur because a traumatic experience is so shocking and so different from everyday experiences that you can't fit it into what you know about the world. So in order to understand what happened, your mind keeps bringing the memory back, as if to better digest it and fit it in.
Increased arousal is also a common response to trauma. This includes feeling jumpy, jittery, shaky, being easily startled, and having trouble concentrating or sleeping. Continuous arousal can lead to impatience and irritability, especially if you're not getting enough sleep. The arousal reactions are due to the fight or flight response in your body. The fight or flight response is the way we protect ourselves against danger, and it occurs also in animals. When we protect ourselves from danger by fighting or running away, we need a lot more energy than usual, so our bodies pump out extra adrenaline to help us get the extra energy we need to survive.
People who have been traumatized often see the world as filled with danger, so their bodies are on constant alert, always ready to respond immediately to any attack. The problem is that increased arousal is useful in truly dangerous situations, such as if we find ourselves facing a tiger. But alertness becomes very uncomfortable when it continues for a long time even in safe situations. Another reaction to danger is to freeze, like the deer in the headlights, and this reaction can also occur during a trauma.
Avoidance is a common way of managing trauma-related pain. The most common is avoiding situations that remind you of the trauma, such as the place where it happened. Often situations that are less directly related to the trauma are also avoided, such as going out in the evening if the trauma occurred at night. Another way to reduce discomfort is trying to push away painful thoughts and feelings. This can lead to feelings of numbness, where you find it difficult to have both fearful and pleasant or loving feelings. Sometimes the painful thoughts or feelings may be so intense that your mind just blocks them out altogether, and you may not remember parts of the trauma.
Many people who have been traumatized feel angry and irritable. If you are not used to feeling angry this may seem scary as well. It may be especially confusing to feel angry at those who are closest to you. Sometimes people feel angry because of feeling irritable so often. Anger can also arise from a feeling that the world is not fair.
Trauma often leads to feelings of guilt and shame. Many people blame themselves for things they did or didn't do to survive. For example, some assault survivors believe that they should have fought off an assailant, and blame themselves for the attack. Others feel that if they had not fought back they wouldn't have gotten hurt. You may feel ashamed because during the trauma you acted in ways that you would not otherwise have done. Sometimes, other people may blame you for the trauma.
Feeling guilty about the trauma means that you are taking responsibility for what occurred. While this may make you feel somewhat more in control, it can also lead to feelings of helplessness and depression.
Grief and depression are also common reactions to trauma. This can include feeling down, sad, hopeless or despairing. You may cry more often. You may lose interest in people and activities you used to enjoy. You may also feel that plans you had for the future don't seem to matter anymore, or that life isn't worth living. These feelings can lead to thoughts of wishing you were dead, or doing something to hurt or kill yourself. Because the trauma has changed so much of how you see the world and yourself, it makes sense to feel sad and to grieve for what you lost because of the trauma.
Self-image and views of the world often become more negative after a trauma. You may tell yourself, "If I hadn't been so weak or stupid this wouldn't have happened to me." Many people see themselves as more negative overall after the trauma ("I am a bad person and deserved this.").
It is also very common to see others more negatively, and to feel that you can't trust anyone. If you used to think about the world as a safe place, the trauma may suddenly make you think that the world is very dangerous. If you had previous bad experiences, the trauma convinces you that the world is dangerous and others aren't to be trusted. These negative thoughts often make people feel they have been changed completely by the trauma. Relationships with others can become tense and it is difficult to become intimate with people as your trust decreases.
Sexual relationships may also suffer after a traumatic experience. Many people find it difficult to feel sexual or have sexual relationships. This is especially true for those who have been sexually (physically or emotionally) assaulted, since in addition to the lack of trust, sex & sexual feelings themselves are a reminder of the trauma.
Some people increase their use of alcohol or other substances after a trauma. There is nothing wrong with responsible drinking, but if your use of alcohol or drugs changed as a result of your traumatic experience, it can slow down your recovery and cause problems of its own. (See a doctor or psychiatrist familiar with PTSD if you have problems sleeping, eating, working and so on.)
Many of the reactions to trauma are connected to one another. For example, a flashback may make you feel out of control, and will therefore produce fear and arousal. Many people think that their common reactions to the trauma mean that they are "going crazy" or "losing it." These thoughts can make them even more fearful. Again, as you become aware of the changes you have gone through since the trauma, and as you process these experiences during treatment, the symptoms should become less distressing.
The information on this Web site is presented for educational purposes only. It is not a substitute for informed medical advice or training. Do not use this information to diagnose or treat a mental health problem without consulting a qualified health or mental health care provider.
All information contained on these pages is in the public domain unless explicit notice is given to the contrary, and may be copied and distributed without restriction.
For more information call the PTSD Information Line at (802) 296-6300 or send email to ncptsd@ncptsd.org.
From the website of the National Centre for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder
Being at the receiving end of abuse (being lied to, being used, being degraded, coerced, minimized, blamed, bullied, humiliated, emotionally raped, verbally and emotionally abused, etc) IS trauma.
Labels: ptsd, reactions, recovering, substance abuse, trauma
