It's not unusual for Alzheimer's patients to need help choosing clothes and remembering to change clothes. Here are some suggestions.

The person with Alzheimer's disease may be reluctant to undress even when they go to bed, or they may refuse to change their clothes. It's important to make sure the person changes their clothes frequently without getting upset. Here are a few strategies you could use to persuade them:

• Remove the dirty clothing and put clean clothing in its place when they're in the bath or shower.
• Persuade them to change because someone is visiting.
• Say how much you'd love to see them wearing something new.

Unusual clothing and Alzheimer's

As long as it does no harm, it's probably better to accept the person dressing in an unusual way, or wearing clothing that is out of place, than to have a confrontation. If they're determined to wear a hat in bed, for example, or a heavy coat in summer, try to respect their choice.

Other aspects of grooming and Alzheimer's

When the person is dressed, help them with their hair. A woman may like to wear makeup or perfume. If she likes wearing jewelry, this is another opportunity for her to have a say in her appearance. If she enjoys having her nails painted, you might like to do this for her. A man may like to have his hair dressed with Brylcreme or to wear cuff links.

Boosting confidence with Alzheimer's Patients

Helping a person to look good is an important way to maintain their confidence. Regularly compliment the person on the way they look, and encourage them to take pride in their appearance.

What to wear and Alzheimer's

Look for clothes that are easy for the person to put on and take off, particularly if they live on their own, such as clothes with larger neck openings and front fastenings or no fastenings.

If you or the person you're caring for are struggling with getting dressed or undressed, make sure they have the right clothing, or make some adaptations:

• Use Velcro fastenings rather than buttons, or hooks and eyes.
• Shoes with laces may be difficult for someone with Alzheimer's to manage. Try well fitting slip-on shoes or shoes with Velcro fastenings, or replace shoelaces with elastic.
• Try to make sure the person doesn't wear slippers for more than a few hours as they may not offer enough support to the feet.
• If you're caring for a woman, front opening bras will be easier for you both to manage. Try to avoid self-supporting stockings as they can cause circulation problems.
• For men, boxer shorts may be easier to manage than Y-fronts.

---

continue story below

---

Sources:

• NIH Senior Health, Caring for Someone with Alzheimer's, March 19, 2002.
• Alzheimer's Society - UK, Information Sheet 510, June 2005.

next: Treatment Options for Alzheimer's Diseas

Excerpts from the Archives of the Narcissism List Part 43

1. Closure
2. The Narcissist's Body
3. Narcissists and Age
4. An Object Relations Approach to Understanding Unusual Behaviors and Disturbances

1. Closure

Everyone learns from experience. The question is what is learned.

The narcissist has alloplastic defenses. In other words, he tends to blame the world for failures, mishaps, problems, and defeats.

Because he has a preconceived notion of a hostile, menacing Universe - his experience only serves to fortify his prejudices. The narcissist learns nothing, forgets nothing, and forgives nothing.

A post-mortem of a relationship conducted with a narcissist is very frustrating because it never achieves closure. The narcissist is interested exclusively in allocating blame and generating guilt - not in progressing, developing, atoning, soothing, or concluding anything.

Such exercises in futility are best avoided.

2. The Narcissist's Body

Lowen in his 1983 book "Narcissism: Denial of the True Self" wrote: "Narcissists lack a sense of self derived from bodily feelings ... (T)hey deny feelings that contradict the image they seek."

The Self first coalesces around physical sensations confined to one's body, excretions, and contact with other physical entities (mainly, the mother). Freud believed that narcissists fail to learn how to shift their attentions and, later, emotions, onto external "objects" (people). Instead, their "Libido" (life and sex drive) is directed at their own body, both sexually (auto-eroticism, masturbation) and emotionally. This failure at "Object Relations" also leads to difficulties in recognizing and accepting the separateness of other people, their boundaries, and their independent emotions and needs.

I think that both Lowen and Freud are right.

However, to my mind, Freud is referring to the somatic narcissist - while Lowen deals with the cerebral one. Cerebral narcissists indeed loathe their body as a source of decay, decrepitude, disease, uncontrollable urges, and death.

3. Narcissists and Age

The Narcissistic and Antisocial personality disorders are so similar that many scholars and, more so, clinicians, suggested to abolish the distinction altogether. Yet, in some respects, there are differences.

Age is one of them.

The DSM IV-TR (2000) has this to say (page 704):

"By definition, Antisocial Personality Disorder cannot be diagnosed before age 18 years ... (It) has a chronic course but may become less evident or remit as the individual grows older, particularly by the fourth decade of life. Although this remission tends to be particularly evident with respect to engaging in criminal behavior, there is likely to be a decrease in the full spectrum of antisocial behaviors and substance use."

And about the Narcissistic Personality Disorder (p. 716):

"Narcissistic traits may be particularly common in adolescents and do not necessarily indicate that the individual will go on to have Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD). Individuals with NPD may have special difficulties adjusting to the onset of physical and occupational limitations that are inherent in the aging process."

The antisocial personality ameliorates with age and, very often, vanishes completely in midlife. Not so pathological narcissism. Many narcissists do get better as they mature, battered by life crises and faced with new responsibilities and new, sometimes painful, lessons.

But other narcissists only get worse. Age seems to accentuate the worst in them. I wrote about this deterioration here.

4. An Object Relations Approach to Understanding Unusual Behaviors and Disturbances

An essay by Kathyi Stringer surveys Object relations theory (mainly Mahler's work). I fully agree with her that this branch of psychodynamics possesses the strongest explanatory powers as far as childhood development and the emergence of psychopathology go.

The main problems with the limited versions of object relations are the neglect of all early infancy influences, bar the mother's - and the proliferation of postulated psychic structures, none of them directly observable. There isn't an agreement even as to basic terminology. Klein's "bad object" is "out thee" - Winnicott's is internalized.

---

---

---

Additionally, the various phases and transitions - such as Separation-Individuation - are "smooth" and do not "leave psychological traces". Melanie Klein's work with its life-long "positions" (paranoid-schizoid and, later, depressive) partly saw to that - but, even so, some scholars (Daniel Stern) dispute the entire edifice based on clinical research.

It is not even agreed that the awareness of separate objects is not an innate, born, ability. Klein - a pillar of Object Relations Theory - thought that infants are born with an ego and the immediate ability to split the world into bad and good objects. Kohut suggested that narcissism and object-love co-exist throughout life and are born - not learned - qualities. And, as many a mother would attest, most children are aware of outside object long before they are 30 days old, the end of the Autistic Phase, according to Mahler.

Classic Object Relations theory also fails to explain the Rapprochement sub-phase of the Separation-Individuation phase. What brings about the separation anxiety that drives the child back into his mother's arms and provokes in it an acute sense of object inconstancy? How does the child transit from the symbiotic omnipotent dyad, in which the mother is a mere extension - into a state of quivering hysteria? Where does the realization of separateness emanate from? The development of language skills reflect this mysterious process - they do not induce it.

Aware of these weaknesses in Mahler's work, Object Relations theorists suggested that primary narcissism has numerous roots. The omnipotence attributed to the mother-extension in the symbiotic phase is only one of them. More about this in my Primer on Narcissism.

 

---

---

next:   Excerpts from the Archives of the Narcissism List Part 44

Excerpts from the Archives of the Narcissism List Part 42

1. Decompensation
2. Introspection
3. Why does He Keep Coming Back?
4. Acting Civil, Saying Goodbye
5. Avoiding Pain
6. Prevalence of NPD
7. Long-term Planning
8. Love and Being Loved

1. Decompensation

Narcissism is a primitive (early life) defense mechanism. It is one of many deployed by the narcissist to prevent his personality from disintegrating (a state known as psychosis). The others are splitting, projection, projective identification, intellectualization, rationalization, denial and so on.

Under severe stress and duress, these defense mechanisms crumble. This is called decompensation.

At first, decompensation leads to acting out - outbursts, childish behavior, criminal activities, atypical substance abuse or reckless behavior, violence.

But if the stressful situation is prolonged and with no end in sight, psychotic micro-episodes are common and they may last from a few minutes up to 4 days each.

2. Introspection

Narcissists are incapable of introspection. This inability to "watch themselves from the outside" is what often gets them into trouble.

Only when the narcissist goes through a massive life crisis (divorce, death in the family, near death experience, bankruptcy, incarceration, abuse, humiliation, exile, etc.) - only then does he begin to reflect on his life and on himself.

But, even then, narcissists are interested in getting things "back to how they were" - not in changing.

Moreover, KNOWING something is not transformative. You've got to feel it, too (to have an "emotional correlate" amounting to an "insight").

3. Why does He Keep Coming Back?

Narcissists act (or refrain from acting) based solely on the availability of narcissistic supply (or lack thereof). If the narcissist keeps coming back - he does so because he is convinced that there is narcissistic supply to be obtained - or because he has yet to secure an alternative source of supply.

Narcissistic supply is about attention, however thwarted and depraved. Adversity, intrigue, fighting, notoriety, infamy, quarrelling, active rebuffing - all constitute narcissistic supply. If ignored consistently for a sufficiently long time, though, the narcissist is likely to let go, if he is not vindictive.

All past sources "qualify" for "re-activation" once the narcissist's supply has been depleted and no other sources are in sight.

Only past sources who made it unequivocally clear that they will allow no further contact are "exempt". But this is very rare. Even a divorce is not the end of the relationship with the narcissist. There is common property, common children, the occasional phone conversation, mail to be forwarded, etc.

Sources of PRIMARY supply are ranked by social status, fame/celebrity, wealth, power/influence, etc. Narcissistic supply emanating from a top politician or the CEO of a large company far outweighs anything offered by the neighborhood grocer.

Spouses or girlfriends provide secondary supply and, as sources, they are utterly interchangeable. Their role is to "accumulate" information about past supply and release it to the narcissist when supplies are low ("remember how famous you were in 1985?", "remember how you won the tournament?"). This is called "regulation" of narcissistic supply.

Thus, to recap, reversion to old sources of secondary supply is automatically triggered when the narcissist's supply has been depleted and no other sources are in sight.

4. Acting Civil, Saying Goodbye

The narcissist acts civil only towards potential sources of narcissistic supply. If your narcissist believes that you may supply him in the future - he will not devalue and discard you and will make the separation as courteous as possible. If he judges you to be "useless" as far as future narcissistic supply goes - he will likely dump you, discard, devalue and even purposefully hurt you in the process.

---

---

---

That's all there is to it. Narcissists regard other people as you might regard a faucet. As long as it spews forth water - you maintain it. Once it stops - you ignore it without giving it a second thought.

But narcissists sometimes fail to say goodbye because they find it difficult to confront their own failure. It is too painful and threatening. The narcissist is a confabulation of omnipotence and perfection built on shaky, fallacious foundations. Failure means exposure and exposure might lead to the disintegration of the entire edifice. The narcissist thus prefers to simply abandon the scene of his defeat even as he declares victory unilaterally and counterfactually.

5. Avoiding Pain

Narcissists are terrified of pain. The False Self - the essence of pathological narcissism- is an elaborate, multilayered reaction to past traumas and their attendant anguish. The narcissist is conditioned by his torturous past to avoid grief at any cost - even at the cost of self-annihilation and re-invention as a narrative, a piece of fiction.

6. Prevalence of NPD

The incidence of the Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD) may be MUCHhigher than the reported figures (up to around 5% of the adult population). The reason NPD is under-reported is because narcissists rarely go to therapy, tend to charm and deceive the therapists once they do , and never admit that something is wrong with them even then.

7. Long-term Planning

The typical narcissist has a short attention span and believes that the world is a random, menacing place. Catch as catch can. Carpe Diem (seize the day). The narcissist lurches at any potential source with a "charm attack" that often, alas, proves irresistible.

Very few narcissists are sufficiently cold and calculated to cultivate long-term Sources of Supply.

Pathological narcissism - the addiction to and pursuit of Narcissistic Supply to regulate a labile sense of self-worth - is not a conscious choice, or a lifestyle, or a profession. It is the quiddity (the essence) of the narcissist. Do bees plan to sting? Do tigers analyze their hunting patterns? Do mothers love their children by design?

It just comes to the narcissist naturally.

I see a beautiful woman, who is also reasonably clever - and I want to "convert" her, to make her admire me, to cause her to spread news and views about me and "proselytize" to ever expanding circles of family and friends.

This wish is the psychological equivalent of hunger or thirst (or sex drive). It is a craving gradually translated into a plan of action.

But first comes the insatiable addiction to narcissistic supply - and only then a cognitive "blueprint" of hunting, conversion and conquest.

8. Love and Being Loved

Fear of commitment ("commitmentophobia") and intimacy is one thing. Inability to love and be loved is another.

All narcissists share the first. And, surprisingly, all narcissists share the second also!

The word "love" is understood by the narcissist to mean "dependence", "neediness", "ability to provide narcissistic supply", "becoming the narcissist's extension and property".

In these - distorted and sick - senses of the word, all narcissists love to be loved...

---

---

next:   Excerpts from the Archives of the Narcissism List Part 43

Excerpts from the Archives of the Narcissism List Part 41

1. Interview with Tim Hall, published by New York Press
2. Interview granted to The Modern Author

1. Interview with Tim Hall, published by New York Press, February 12, 2003

The edited interview appeared here - http://www.nypress.com/16/7/news&columns/feature.cfm

Q: I'm very interested in the concept of corporate narcissism. Many companies are successful without also engaging in criminal behaviour. In your opinion, how much of the recent wave of business scandals in the U.S. is attributable to a corporate "culture of narcissism," and how much to a number of very misguided - and possibly narcissistic - individuals?

A: The "few rotten apples" theory ignores the fact that affairs like Enron and World.com were not isolated incidents - nor were they conducted conspiratorially and surreptitiously. What is now conveniently labeled "misconduct" was an open secret. Information - albeit often relegated to footnotes - was available. The charismatic malignant narcissists who headed these corporation were cheered on by investors, small and institutional alike. Their grandiose fantasies were construed as visionary. Their sense of entitlement - never commensurate with their actual achievements - was tolerated forgivingly. Their blatant exploitation of co-workers and stakeholders was part of the ethos of the virile Anglo-Saxon, natural selection, can-do, dare-do, version of capitalism. Everyone colluded in this mass psychosis. There are no victims here - only scapegoats.

Q: This relates to my first question. In the late 1990s you couldn't swing a dead cat on lower Broadway without hitting a dozen Internet "visionaries," touting companies which then went bankrupt. These individuals seemed to literally come out of nowhere--suddenly everybody was a Genius with a Big Idea. Again, I'm wondering if you have any thoughts on whether certain business cycles (like the Internet boom) actually create Narcissists, or simply attract numbers of pre-existing Narcissists, looking for quick and easy wealth.

A: The latter. Pathological (or malignant) narcissism is the outcome of a confluence of an appropriate genetic predisposition and early childhood abuse by role models, caretakers, or peers. It is ubiquitous because every human being - regardless of the nature of his society and culture - develops healthy narcissism early in life. Healthy narcissism is rendered pathological by abuse - and abuse, alas, is a universal human behaviour. By "abuse" I mean any refusal to acknowledge the emerging boundaries of the individual. Thus, smothering, doting, and excessive expectations are as abusive as beating and incest.

Pathological narcissism, though, can be latent and induced to emerge (to out) by what I call "collective narcissism". The WAY pathological narcissism manifests and is experienced is dependent on the particulars of societies and cultures. In some cultures, it is encouraged, in others suppressed. In collectivist societies, it may be projected onto the collective, in individualistic societies, it is an individual's trait. Families, businesses, industries, organizations, ethnic groups, churches, and even whole nations can be safely described as "narcissistic" or "pathologically self-absorbed".

The longer the association, or affiliation of the members - the more cohesive and conformist the inner dynamics of the group, the more shared are its grandiose fantasies ("the vision thing"), the more persecutory, or numerous its enemies, the more misunderstood and exclusionary it feels, the more intensive the physical and emotional experiences of its members. The stronger the bonding myth - the more rigorous the common pathology.

Such an all-pervasive and extensive malaise manifests itself in the behavior of each and every member. It is a defining - though often implicit or underlying - mental structure. It has explanatory and predictive powers. It is recurrent and invariable - a pattern of conduct melded with distorted cognition and stunted emotions. And it is often vehemently denied.

Q: What steps might a corporation take to protect it from being ruined by this kind of narcissistic contagion?

A: The first - and most obvious - step is screening. Mental health management is often considered a low organizational priority - frequently with calamitous outcomes. Employees on all levels - especially the upper echelons - should be tested periodically and regularly by professional diagnosticians for personality disorders. Those who test positive should be sacked. There is no way of containing narcissism. It is contagious - weaker people tend to emulate narcissists, stronger ones tend to adopt narcissistic behaviors in order to fend off the narcissist's unwelcome attentions and overweening demands.

Narcissistic behaviour - bullying, stalking, harassment, criminal predilections - should be proscribed and punished severely. Management should be attuned to warning signs - such as a persistent and recurrent inability to get along with all co-workers, a domineering sense of entitlement, unrealistic and grandiose fantasies, requiring excessive attention, responding with rage to criticism, or disagreement, excessive and destructive envy, exploitativeness, lack of empathy. Pathological narcissism rarely manifests in a first encounter - but is invariably revealed later on.

Q: The latest web craze is blogging. Some of these sites are focused on external subjects, like politics or technology, but the majority of them are online diaries wherein the owners attempt to self-mythologize the most mundane aspects of their existence. Are weblogs becoming the latest form of collective narcissism?

A: It depends on the blogger and the content of the blog. Not every act of self-centredness is narcissistic. A modicum of self-love, self-esteem and a sense of self-worth are all healthy. Pathological narcissism is rigorously defined. The narcissist feels grandiose and self-important (e.g., exaggerates achievements and
talents to the point of lying, demands to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements). He (most narcissists are men) is obsessed with fantasies of unlimited success, fame, fearsome power, or omnipotence, unequalled brilliance (the cerebral narcissist), bodily beauty or sexual performance (the somatic narcissist), or ideal, everlasting, all-conquering love or passion.

---

---

---

The narcissist is firmly convinced that he or she is unique and, being special, can only be understood by, should only be treated by, or associate with, other special or unique, or high-status people (or institutions). He requires excessive admiration, adulation, attention and affirmation - or, failing that, wishes to be feared and to be notorious (narcissistic supply).

The narcissist feels entitled. He expects unreasonable, or special and favorable priority treatment. He demands automatic and full compliance with his expectations, is "interpersonally exploitative", i.e., uses others to achieve his or her own ends, is devoid of empathy. The narcissist is unable or unwilling to identify with or acknowledge the feelings and needs of others. He is constantly envious of others and believes that they feel the same about him or her. He exhibits arrogant, haughty behaviors, or attitudes coupled with rage when frustrated, contradicted, or confronted.

Q: Would you say the Catholic Church is suffering from a kind of collective narcissism, given its history of protecting child molesters?

A: No, I would say that it is showing the same sense of self-preservation and Mob-like clubbiness that has characterized its history. The doctrine of the infallibility of the Pope, the Church's claim to possess privileged knowledge and unique access to the Creator, its pronounced lack of empathy for the victims of its misconduct, its self-righteous conviction, its belief that it is above human laws, its rigidity and so on - are all narcissistic traits and behavior patterns. But, to my mind, as an organization, it has crossed the line between pathological narcissism and psychopathy long ago. But then, I am a Jew and, therefore, somewhat biased.

Q: In an interview on healthyplace.com, in response to a question about how to reason and negotiate with a narcissist, you said, "That's a tough one. The narcissist is autistic." That interested me because I had just been reading about Asperger's Disorder, which is considered to be a form of high-functioning autism, and in some ways the symptoms are similar to NPD. Can you explain in some more detail about what you meant? Are you aware of any research linking AS with NPD?

A: People suffering from Asperger's Disorder lack empathy, are sensitive to the point of paranoid ideation, and are rigid with some obsessive-compulsive behaviours - all features of the Narcissistic Personality Disorder. As a result, their social skills are impaired and their social interactions thwarted. The presenting symptoms of both disorders are very similar. It is easy to misinterpret the Asperger's body language as haughtiness, for instance. Still, scholars today regard Asperger as part of a "schizoid spectrum" in common with the Schizoid Personality Disorder rather than the Narcissistic one.

Q: On your site, you say that a Narcissist can change his behaviour, but usually only after his world is in shambles. Further, even if he does change his behaviour, he cannot heal. This reminded me of the "bottoming-out" process that many drug addicts and alcoholics must go through before they will seek help. Likewise, 12-step movements assert that no addict is ever "cured." Can the philosophies of AA be successfully applied to the narcissist, or help in understanding narcissism?

A: The narcissist is addicted to a drug - his "narcissistic supply". He craves and relentlessly and ruthlessly pursues attention. In the absence of positive attention - adulation, admiration, affirmation, applause, fame, or celebrity - the narcissist makes do with the negative kind (notoriety, infamy). The dynamics of the narcissistic disorder, therefore, closely resemble the psychological dimensions of drug addiction, including the "bottoming-out" that you mentioned. I believe that the treatment modalities preferred by AA, Weight Watchers and 12 step programs should prove applicable to the Narcissistic Personality Disorder. Perhaps it is time to establish Narcissists Anonymous.

Q: Is the narcissist unwilling to change, or unable to change?

A: The narcissist is unwilling to change because pathological narcissism has been an adaptive and efficient reaction to the narcissist's life circumstances. Wilhelm Reich called the amalgam of such defence mechanisms an "armor". It restricts one's freedom of movement - but keeps out hurt and threat. The narcissist overcomes adversity by pretending it is isn't there or by reinterpreting events and circumstances to conform to his grandiose and fantastic internal landscape of perfection, omnipotence and omniscience. his narcissism. All narcissists are dimly aware that something has gone awry early on in their lives. But none of them sees why he should replace an existence of splendor - albeit mostly imaginary - with the drabness of the quotidian. The precarious balance of his chaotic and primitive personality vitally depends on the maintenance and furtherance of

Q: What is your advice to somebody who might read this and think that they live or work with a narcissist? What's the first thing they should do?

A: The first and the last thing they should do is disengage. Run, abandon, vanish. Make no excuses. Narcissism is dangerous to your health.

Q: Do you still live in Skopje, Macedonia? Can you tell me a little about where you live, what it's like?

A: I am an Israeli by birth. Upon my release from prison at the end of 1996, I moved to live in Macedonia. With the exception of 1998-9, when I had to flee Macedonia due to political agitation against the incumbent government's corruption, I have lived in Skopje ever since.

---

---

---

Frozen at an early morning hour, the stony hands of the giant, cracked clock commemorate the horror. The earthquake that struck Skopje in 1963 has shattered not only its Byzantine decor, has demolished not merely the narrow passageways of its Ottoman past, has transformed not only its Habsburgian waterfront with its baroque National Theatre. The disastrous reconstruction, supervised by a Japanese architect, has robbed it of its soul. It has become a drab and sprawling socialist metropolis replete with monumentally vainglorious buildings, now falling into decrepitude and disrepair. The influx of destitute and simpleton villagers (which more than quintupled Skopje's population) was crammed by central planners with good intentions and avaricious nature into low-quality, hi-rise slums in newly constructed "settlements".

Skopje is a city of extremes. Its winter is harsh in shades of white and grey. Its summer is naked and steamy and effulgent. It pulses throughout the year in smoke-filled, foudroyant bars and dingy coffee-houses. Polydipsic youths in migratory skeins, eager to be noted by their peers, young women on the hunt, ageing man keen to be preyed upon, suburbanites in search of recognition, gold chained mobsters surrounded by flaxen voluptuousness - the cast of the watering holes of this potholed eruption of a city.

The trash seems never to be collected here, the streets are perilously punctured, policemen often substitute for dysfunctional traffic lights. The Macedonians drive like the Italians, gesture like the Jews, dream like the Russians, are obstinate like the Serbs, desirous like the French and hospitable like the Bedouins. It is a magical concoction, coated in the subversive patience and the aggressive passivity of the long oppressed. There is the wisdom of fear itself in the eyes of the 600,000 inhabitants of this landlocked, mountain-surrounded habitat. Never certain of their future, still grappling with their identity, an air of "carpe diem" with the most solemn religiosity of the devout.

The past lives on and flows into the present seamlessly. People recount the history of every stone, recite the antecedents of every man. They grieve together, rejoice in common and envy en masse. A single organism with many heads, it offers the comforts of assimilation and solidarity and the horrors of violated privacy and bigotry. The people of this conurbation may have left the village - but it never let them go. They are the opsimaths of urbanism. Their rural roots are everywhere: in the the division of the city into tight-knit, local-patriotic "settlements". In the traditional marriages and funerals. In the scarcity of divorces despite the desperate shortage in accommodation. In the asphyxiating but oddly reassuring familiarity of faces, places, behaviour and beliefs, superstitions, dreams and nightmares. Life in a distended tempo of birth and death and in between.

Skopje has it all - wide avenues with roaring traffic, the incommodious alleys of the Old Town, the proper castle ruins (the Kale). It has a Turkish Bridge, recently renovated out of its quaintness. It has a square with Art Nouveau building in sepia hues. An incongruent digital clock atop a regal edifice displayed the minutes to the millennium - and beyond. It has been violated by American commerce in the form of three McDonald restaurants which the locals proceeded cheerfully to transform into snug affairs. Stolid Greek supermarkets do not seem to disrupt the inveterate tranquility of neighbourhood small grocers and their coruscant congeries of variegated fruits and vegetables, spilling to the pavement.

In winter, the light in Skopje is diaphanous and lambent. In summer, tis strong and all-pervasive. Like some coquettish woman, the city changes mantles of orange autumn leaves and the green foliage of summer. Its pure white heart of snow often is hardened into grey and traitorous sleet. It is a fickle mistress, now pouring rain, now drizzle, now simmering sun. The snowy mountain caps watch patiently her vicissitudes. Her inhabitants drive out to ski on slopes, to bathe in lakes, to climb to sacred sites. It gives them nothing but congestion and foul atmosphere and yet they love her dearly. The Macedonian is the peripatetic patriot - forever shuttling between his residence abroad and his true and only home. Between him and his land is an incestuous relationship, a love affair unbroken, a covenant handed down the generations. Landscapes of infancy imprinted that provoke an almost Pavolvian reaction of return.

Skopje has known many molesters. It has been traversed by every major army in European history and then by some. Occupying a vital crossroad, it is a layer cake of cultures and ethnicities. To the Macedonians, the future is always portentous, ringing with the ominousness of the past. The tension is great and palpable, a pressure cooker close to bursting. The river Vardar divides increasingly Albanian neighbourhoods (Butel, Cair, Shuto Orizari) from Macedonian (non-Muslim) ones. Albanians have also moved from the villages in the periphery encircling Skopje into hitherto "Macedonian" neighbourhoods (like Karpos and the Centre). The Romas have their own ghetto called "Shutka" (in Shuto Orizari), rumoured to be the biggest such community in Europe. The city has been also "invaded" (as its Macedonian citizens experience it) by Bosnian Muslims. Gradually, as friction mounts, segregation increases. Macedonians move out of apartment blocks and neighbourhoods populated by Albanians. This inner migration bodes ill for future integration. There is no inter-marriage to speak of, educational facilities are ethnically-pure and the conflict in Kosovo with its attendant "Great Albania" rumblings has only exacerbated a stressed and anxious history.

It is here, above ground, that the next earthquake awaits, along the inter-ethnic fault lines. Strained to the point of snapping by a KFOR-induced culture shock, by the vituperative animosity between the coalition and opposition parties, by European-record unemployment and poverty (Albania is the poorest, by official measures) - the scene is set for an eruption. Peaceful by long and harsh conditioning, the Macedonians withdraw and nurture a siege mentality. The city is boisterous, its natives felicitously facetious, its commerce flourishing. It is transmogrified by Greek and Bulgarian investors into a Balkan business hub. But under this shimmering facade, a great furnace of resentment and frustration spews out the venom of intolerance. One impolitic move, one unkind remark, one wrong motion - and it will boil over to the detriment of one and all.

---

---

---

Dame Rebecca West was here, in Skopje (Skoplje, as she spells it) about 60 years ago. She wrote:

"This (Macedonian) woman (in the Orthodox church) had suffered more than most other human beings, she and her forebears. A competent observer of this countryside has said that every single person born in it before the Great War (and quite a number who were born after it) has faced the prospect of violent death at least once in his or her life. She had been born during the calamitous end of Turkish maladministration, with its cycles of insurrection and massacre and its social chaos. If her own village had not been murdered, she had, certainly, heard of many that had and had never had any guarantee that hers would not some day share the same fate... and there was always extreme poverty. She had had far less of anything, of personal possessions, of security, of care in childbirth than any Western woman can imagine. But she had two possessions that any Western woman might envy. She had strength, the terrible stony strength of Macedonia; she was begotten and born of stocks who could mock all bullets save those which went through the heart, who could outlive the winters when they were driven into the mountains, who could survive malaria and plague, who could reach old age on a diet of bread and paprika. And cupped in her destitution as in the hollow of a boulder there are the last drops of the Byzantine tradition."

Q: Your book, "Malignant Self-Love - Narcissism Revisited" is a consistent high-seller on the Barnes & Noble website. Do you know how many copies are currently in print?

A: Yes, I do but it is a commercial secret, I am afraid.

Q: Is the book being used in any colleges or coursework to your knowledge?

A: None whatsoever. No self-respecting - and, more often than not, narcissistic - academic would admit to learning anything from a self-confessed narcissist and ex-con with no institutional affiliation. Academe's resistance to field work is coupled with a patronizing, navel-gazing, self-satisfied and autistic attitude. There are precious few mental health professionals who possess a real and profound grasp of narcissism - or who peruse the archives of my discussion lists - the record of interactions among thousands of narcissists and their victims and an invaluable, unique, resource. would readily admit to such deficiency. Very few bother to visit and

Q: Do you have any plans to come to the U.S. for any lectures or readings?

A: I would love to - but was never invited by anyone.

Q: What I found most fascinating about the book was not only the subject matter, but the style of writing and the intensely personal twist you bring to a subject that is usually treated in dry, impenetrable academic/psychiatric jargon. To me, your book is not only an essential primer on Narcissism, but it ranks as one of the great works of confessional literature. Have others noted the purely literary qualities of the book, apart from the clinical/psychological aspect?

A: I am flattered but beg to disagree. The book's literary qualities are, at best, questionable. My best writing is political (see, for instance, my articles in Central Europe Review) and economic (my articles published by United Press International-UPI). My poetry, I believe, is good as is my online journal. But my other work is verbose and convoluted. Luckily for my publisher, there is nothing that comes remotely close to it in scope and - this being a first hand account and a distillation of six years of correspondence with thousands of people - in penetration and accuracy.

Q: In the wake of these business scandals, the concept of narcissism seems to be appearing in the media more and more. Have you seen increased interest in your work in the past year or so?

A: Interest in narcissism has exploded after the bursting of the dot.com bubble in early 2000. My Web sites have hitherto garnered more than 4 million page views and are currently running at 15,000 page views per day. There are 4000 members in my various mailing lists. It is impossible to avoid my work when one queries a search engine, such as Google, or a human-edited directory such as the Open Directory Today, seven of every ten Web sites which deal with the issue mirror my content - including all the major ones. Phrases I have either coined or helped disseminate widely are routinely used by the profession and in the media, both print and electronic. My book, as you yourself have noted, is a bestseller in Barnesandnoble.com

Yet, hard to believe as this may sound, in six years of activity which touched the lives of hundreds of thousands, frequently in transforming ways, I have been interviewed only once by the major media (the New York Times last year). It is as if I did not exist. I am embittered and feel disenfranchised.

The amazing thing is that thousands of journalists and media people all over the world have been exposed to my work. Barely three or four of them - yourself included - have offered to write about it.

Q: Going back to the concept of 12-step programs and NPD, there's a saying in AA that "self-esteem is built by doing esteemable acts." Through your work and writing you have helped a great many people. Do you ever have moments where you feel genuinely good about yourself for helping others?

A: Yes, but the way a narcissist would. I enjoy my power to affect other people's lives, the narcissistic supply they provide me with and the attention this brings. Hence my consternation at the scant media attention I am getting.

Q: Regarding your own experience with NPD: with such a poor prognosis for sufferers, aren't you at least beating the odds when it comes to NPD? Would you say you are winning the battle, if not the war?

A: Undoubtedly, I have succeeded to harness the usually destructive power of narcissism and apply it productively for the common benefit of everyone involved. But it is still narcissism. I am still - exclusively - after narcissistic supply. I am as grandiose, as exploitative, as lacking empathy as I ever was. I feel as entitled as I ever did. I fly into rages, idealize and devalue and, in general, exhibit the full spectrum of narcissistic behaviors. Narcissism is a dynamic. Its outcomes can be either socially acceptable or condemnable - but the underlying corrosive phenomenon is the same. One cannot heal merely by cognitively accepting that one is diseased. The assimilation of such an insight requires an emotional complement, an investment of feelings and humility. I lack these.

---

---

---

I once wrote in "The Malignant Optimism of the Abused":

"I often come across sad examples of the powers of self-delusion that the narcissist provokes in his victims. It is what I call "malignant optimism". People refuse to believe that some questions are unsolvable, some diseases incurable, some disasters inevitable. They see a sign of hope in every fluctuation. They read meaning and patterns into every random occurrence, utterance, or slip. They are deceived by their own pressing need to believe in the ultimate victory of good over evil, health over sickness, order over disorder. Life appears otherwise so meaningless, so unjust and so arbitrary... So, they impose upon it a design, progress, aims, and paths. This is magical thinking."

2. Interview granted to The Modern Author

The edited interview appeared here -

Q: Is this the only genre you write and if so have you ever been tempted to write something else (and what)?

A: I resist temptations poorly. Hence my varied portfolio: poetry, short fiction, nonfiction, political and economic articles, opinion columns and even mystery.

Q: What are the names/genres of your books? Where can they be found?

A: All my recent books - there are too many to enumerate here - can be found here: http://samvak.tripod.com/freebooks.html

Some of them can be freely downloaded - others must be purchased, I am afraid...

My Hebrew short fiction is available through here: http://samvak.tripod.com/sipurim.html

My poetry is here (warning: not for the squeamish!): http://samvak.tripod.com/contents.html

Older titles can be found or accessed through my biography page:

My United Press International (UPI) archive:http://vakninupi.cjb.net

Author archive of political columns in "Central Europe Review"

http://www.ce-review.org/authorarchives/vaknin_archive/vaknin_main.html

Q: Who/what influenced your writing?

A: In my youth I was swayed by authors such as Poe, Conan Doyle and other weavers of mystery and intrigue. I liked their baroque, Victorian style - penumbral and ponderous with a pathology lurking just beneath the surface.

My fiction, though, is post-modern: lean, amoral, documentary. My columns attempt to imitate the erudition and crispiness of The Economist - a tall order, admittedly.

Q: What is your favourite book?

A: By far, Alice in Wonderland. A prophetic tome which foretold the gathering storm of the 20th century: moral relativism, social disintegration, lethal authoritarianism, the absurd. A dark, haunting and disturbing masterpiece masterfully disguised as a nursery tale.

Q: Who is your favourite author?

A: A low-brow answer: Agatha Christie. The unwitting and morbidly fascinating chronicler of her own demise - the gradual fading of her milieu, her period, its mores and values, beliefs and superstitions, dreams and aspirations. The mirror of pre-Hitler Europe crack'd and then there were none. She was there, an indefatigable and uncannily observant documentarist of a dying era.

Q: Which book that you have written is your favourite?

A: My first book of short fiction - "Requesting my Loved One" (http://samvak.tripod.com/sipurim.html) - records the simultaneous processes of disintegration and self-revelation I experienced in jail. It is such an intensely intimate document that I dare not delve into now, years after it was published and won critical acclaim and awards.

But my favorite work is "After the Rain - How the West Lost the East" (http://samvak.tripod.com/after.html). It is an anthology of political jeremiads of biblical fury and imagery. I didn't know I had it in me.

---

---

---

Q: When did you start writing?

A: My parents bought me a blackboard and chalk when I was three. I could read a daily paper by the age of six. I never stopped since. I prefer reading and writing to absolutely any other experience, bar films.

Q: How long does it take you to write a book?

A: I write c. 4-6 pages daily. I produce a typical 240 pages book of political and economic commentary and researched articles every 3 months.

Q: What would you like to ask another author (and which author)?

A: I would like to ask the great Austrian and German novelists - Musil, Werfel, Mann, Kafka (and the quasi-Frenchman Proust) - how they sustained the effort? I could never compose a work of fiction longer than 10 pages. How does one avoid plodding and the inexorable waning of the characters? How is the reader kept riveted to the last page?

Q: What advice would you give for aspiring authors?

A: It's all about marketing. Network, self-promote, spread the word, give free copies and free copy, collaborate with fellow authors, be generous, be ubiquitous, put the Internet to good use.

Q: What would you like to get out of being an author and your work?

A: Above all, I would like to make a difference. "Malignant Self Love - Narcissism Revisited" has touched the lives of many and changed them for the better. This is the only thing that counts, to my mind.

Q: What message (if any) would you like readers to take from your writing?

A: It is all in your hands. What happens to you and the fate of others in entirely in your hands. You have the power to make a difference and to change things. Do it now.

 

---

---

next:   Excerpts from the Archives of the Narcissism List Part 42

Overview of tryptophan as a natural remedy for depression and whether tryptophan works in treating depression.

What is Tryptophan for Depression?

Tryptophan is an amino acid which is naturally present in the diet. It can also be taken as a dietary supplement either in the form of tryptophan or 5-hydroxytryptophan (5-HTP).

How does Tryptophan work?

Tryptophan in food is converted by the body into 5-hydroxytryptophan and then into serotonin. Serotonin is a chemical messenger in the brain which is in short supply in people who are depressed. By taking more tryptophan, the supply of serotonin in the brain will be increased.

Is Tryptophan effective for depression?

There have been a large number of studies on tryptophan, but most of these have been poor quality. There have been only two good quality studies. These studies found that tryptophan was more effective than placebo (dummy pills).

Are there any disadvantages?

The side-effects of Tryptophan include producing nausea and digestive problems. In 1989 there were over 30 deaths from Eosinophilia-Myalgia Syndrome in people taking tryptophan. It is not known whether these deaths were due to the tryptophan itself or some impurity when it was manufactured.

Where do you get Tryptophan?

Due to its possible risks, tryptophan is restricted in availability in a number of countries.

---

 

---

Recommendation

Tryptophan may help depression. However, because of safety concerns, it cannot be recommended.

Key references Shaw K, Turner J, Del Mar C. Tryptophan and 5-hydroxytryptophan for depression (Cochrane Review). In: The Cochrane Library, Issue 3, 2004. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

back to: Alternative Treatments for Depression

It's bothered me at times that as a male, I've been accused of thinking about sex often. I hear phrases by the females of my species that would suggest that thinking about sex often throughout the day is a negative activity. Many derogatory remarks surround the male thinking in regards to sex and how the activity of sex for men is not in line with what might be considered in our society as caring, nurturing, or respectful. So, why do men think about sex? Have we been trained from young boys to do so? Have we been trained to have sex and then leave the scene with very few words? Are we uncaring and disrespectful in our approach to sex? Maybe we do care a great deal and have an enormous respect for it, but in a way that nature intended and not as defined by the females of our species.

It appears to me that the male mammals on our planet have been engineered by nature to do something very important. This something ensures the continuance of each of our species of mammal so they do not fall into the throws of extinction. This something is the very essence of our existence.

Mammals reproduce.

Male mammals reproduce as often as possible. It is the core of their being. They eat and reproduce and they are engineered by nature to do so. It is a characteristic that is miraculous and should be celebrated by each species. If males had not been engineered to have this characteristic, we would parish. Our species would cease to exist. We did not choose this attribute; we were given it as a special gift by nature just as females were given the special gift of baring the life that, male and female create. We celebrate the miracle of growing children and the baring of them in the female of our species. I believe it to be important to also celebrate the miracle of reproductive desires by the male of our species and not judge nature's decision to engineer males in her way. . . as a negative.

It is one of the miracles of being a man. It is a celebrated process. It is life.

What nature has engineered males to care about, whether they want to or not, is the continuance of our species. This is a very noble purpose in the cycle of life on our planet. We have tremendous respect for this process and its important not to speak negatively about it to our children or to each other. Saying it is derogatory for men to want to have sex many times throughout the day is similar to saying it is derogatory for women to want to have babies. Both are important. Both are noble.

Shaming men for having been engineered by nature to want to reproduce is as destructive as shaming women for having been engineered by nature to want to have children.

next: About Me, Clinton Clark
~ all Art of Healing articles
~ addictions library articles
~ all addictions articles

The sound of the Big Hole, lapping, moving slowly, October-like. I could sit here and breathe in the sage til I filled up with the fragrance so big, so strong, that I explode. Little pieces of me would fling for a mile across the river, into the cottonwoods, over the prickly pear and the juniper, till they finally reach the golden eagle rookery.

And a young eagle will say to its mother, "What's all these little pieces of stuff falling from Heaven; looks like aspen leaves, but it's not." And his mother would answer, "Oh, that's just pieces of that woman who loves sage. I've seen her here before. I've seen her pick sage twigs and juniper twigs and put them in her pocket. I've seen her looking up at us when we're in the sky, craning her neck back till she fell over. I've seen her sitting on the ground, holding sage against her nose, breathing it in. I knew something like this would happen to her if she kept doing that. She probably knew it too.

She loves this place. She loves our sky, our river, the willow, the juniper, the greasewood, the rocks, the old bones, the wild flowers; everything of the earth and sky she loves. She even loves every high-tailed little chipmunk that scurries around. You know, the ones we like to eat for dessert? I know all this because I've watched from the sky---with my eagle eye!

I've seen her on her back staring at our sky, watching the clouds roll across; the dolphin clouds, the shark clouds, the lace clouds, the long finger clouds. I've seen her face down on the ground, kissing it! Can you imagine? And that's where she wanted to be---a part of the earth---and that's what she is now. She breathed in so much sage power she just exploded. Sage Ecstasy.

I've heard her pray for rain, a healing rain, and it would come. Whatever she asked for, it would come. She asked to be a part of mother earth, and now you see these tiny pieces floating through the air like dry aspen leaves. They are sage woman, and she has come home. She has come home.

---

continue story below

---

More of Marg's wonderful work:

Restore Us

May the great waters
of the Creator
wash down
and cleanse us of
OUR HISTORY.

Wash the blood from
our hands,
our hearts.
Restore us, Creator,
all of us,
every one.

Restore the earth
OUR MOTHER,
and all her children.
Restore us to
Harm-less-ness.

Let no harm
be in us
ever again.

Let us, Creator,
remember LOVE,
which will
bring us home
again.

(©Marg Garner, Dillon, Montana - February 4, 1997)

Cluster Picking

I don't remember why they made us do it,
pick those beans, three cents a pound.
Maybe I was 13...now it seems like a life
somebody else lived...like I died
and was resurrected later down the line.
People at the factory said
don't cluster pick, hold with the left,

pick with the right...leave the baby beans.
But God, it was hot, awful hot,
and the rows went on all day long.
A bean-at-a-time took forever
while we drug those burlap bags
up and down...up and down...
the only shade made by those

awful green vines where spiders
clung to leaves, to beans.
I don't know who told us we had to do it.
Maybe for pocket money
Dad was always drunk.

We were a truck-load of kids in
The black dark at 5 a.m.
I hated leaving the covers
My refuge in that other life
The life that's gone.

And there's nothing
Left of the 'me' that was then.
Well, maybe the part that hates spiders, and
green beans, and getting up in the morning
and the part that would cluster pick
if I thought I could get away with it.

(© Marg Garner, Dillon, Montana. Reprinted with permission. Marg Garner is a writer of short stories, essays and poetry.)

next:Gifts from the Web

It was about a month after starting my new job, that I started having crying fits and felt out-of-sorts all the time. There was this burning ache in my chest that wouldn't go away. Even though my duties at work were light, everything seemed impossible to do, and just walking through the door was intimidating. I began confiding in a couple of friends that something was terribly wrong, and they just listened--which for awhile was very comforting, but it began to ring hollow within a couple of months.

By September, I was depressed nearly all the time, and didn't want to talk to anyone for any reason--mostly because I didn't want to sadden them. I was withdrawn, even at work. At some point, the notion that I'd be like that for the rest of my life became unbearable. The natural result of that was that I started thinking about suicide. I imagined all sorts of neat and clean ways to do myself in. After a week of intermittent suicidal thoughts, it finally occurred to me that this wasn't right. I recalled signs listing the symptoms of depression that used to be up in my college dorm hallway and I knew that I fit just about all of them.

By this point, I knew I needed help. Still, I put it off. The embarrassment of telling my doctor, and the fear that I wouldn't get better, nearly paralyzed me. But one day, I collapsed in a crying fit, at work and literally bawled for a half-hour straight. No one was around, thankfully, but the chance that someone might have seen me, was enough. The embarrassment of asking for help, couldn't be worse than having co-workers come across me like that. So I made a call and saw my doctor. (To show you how seriously he took it, when I asked for an appointment, his secretary initially set one for about 3-weeks away. She asked what was wrong. When I told her I thought I was depressed, she made it for the next day.) The doctor started me on Prozac.

Just this, was enough to cheer me a little. My doctor had been helpful and supportive and assured me that I'd be well. However, even though he suggested therapy as an option, I didn't pursue it. I didn't want to have to explain my past to a stranger. Moreover, I had been trying to forget it about my past for 20 years. The last thing I wanted was to dig it all up again!

I found out the hard way that this doesn't work. The Prozac helped for a little while, but I worsened again. This time, I was sure that nothing would help. If I was getting depressed while on medication, then ... well, that was it. There was no hope of a cure. So I kept going downhill, eventually getting even worse than before.

In early January 1997, I took a day off from work. I was just too depressed to go. The day grew worse until, in the afternoon, I put together a suicide plan. Before I could follow through though, my wife came home from her job a couple hours early and found me crying in bed. She called my doctor who asked to talk with me. And then came the golden question: "Have you thought about hurting yourself?"

That, I think, was a defining moment. I could've denied that I'd been planning suicide, but that would get me nowhere (except dead). So I broke down and admitted I'd made a plan and was a few minutes away from it, before I "got caught." My doctor sent me to the emergency room and I was admitted to the hospital psych ward, that night.

I was in the hospital well over a week. There were group therapy sessions and the nurses and counselors all spent time with me trying to find the cause(s) of my depression. It took several days, but I finally started talking about things that had happened 20-to-30 years ago. I remembered things that happened that I'd long forgotten. Such as the time some kids threw me down a flight of stairs at school, in sight of a teacher, who just laughed. There were many other things which I will not go into here. Suffice it to say that I arrived at the hospital in terrible shape, and actually got worse as these things were revealed. However, by about a week after admission, I started to see that none of it was my fault and that I was no longer that bothersome little knee-biter that noone wanted to deal with. Reality was not what I'd believed it to be.

Since then it's been a long, long uphill climb. Since that first hospital admission, I've been back there three times. These setbacks aside, I've slowly gotten better. But I have a long way to go yet, and probably will have a few more breakdowns.

next: My Experience With Therapy
~ back to Living with Depression homepage
~ depression library articles
~ all articles on depression

Addiction and Violent Behaviors

Violence is any physical contact which is not performed in a loving, nurturing, or respectful way. Young children may need some physical contact on occasion to set safe boundaries for them. An example would be spanking a child to prevent them from repeatedly going out into a busy street.

The difference between violence and boundary setting is clear. Is the child being spanked out of love and concern for their well being? Or are they being spanked as a way for the addict parent to vent (expel) angry, scared, or frustrated feelings? If it is the latter, the contact is violence. In this way, the child is being used as a drug as a way to help the addict feel better.

Violence includes "deprivation of basic needs" such as refusing the child access to:

• Medical attention
• Food
• Clean water
• Shelter
• Clean air
• A breath of air
• Heat
• A sense of safety (forcing the child into potentially life-threatening conditions)
• The right to flee as needed (restraining a child in lock-up areas, binding a child, trapping a child, etc)
• The right to expel body wastes (urine, feces, vomit, etc)
• The right to sanitation
• The right to expel tears, vomit, fear, anger, etc (the right to cry, the right to vomit, etc)

Shaming, humiliating, terrorizing, or injuring a child in connection with the access to basic needs is a type of deprivation. The child is being trained to practice self-deprivation as a way to avoid the shaming, humiliation, terrorization, and/ or injury.

Violence also includes being forced to witness or observe trauma, ritual, pornography, punishment, death, destruction, dismemberment, suffocation, crippling. And, all of human origin, without a support system to grieve or psychologically process the event. This includes the destruction or disposition of pets, farm animals, personal property, toys, clothing, bicycles, etc.

Rage

Rage is anger and frustration out of control. Rage might include throwing things, slamming doors, breaking things, all within the child's view. Considering the sheer size of an adult as compared to a child, a child viewing an adult who is raging out of control will be terrorized by the experience. The goals of an addicted parent raging are to expel feelings in order to "feel better" and at the same time, scare their objects of addiction into compliance. Remember compliance is one of the addict's expectations for their objects of addiction, which in this case is the child.

Coercion

Coercion is the threat of violence. Sam's addict parent, in an attempt to control, might say coercive things like:

(said from an angry victim stance)

• "If you ever do that again, I'll beat you to a pulp."
• "I'll beat you till you can't walk straight."
• "Stop that crying or I'll give you something to cry about."
• "Just wait till your dad gets home, he is going to really be angry."
• "Would you like a spanking (beating)?, Get over here right now."
• "Get in here right now or you'll get a spanking (beating)."
• "Sometimes I wish you were dead. I hate you. I wished I'd never had kids. I wished I'd never had you."

The use of threat or destructive bargaining is also a part of coercion.

A terrorist uses coercion to control situations with some intended goal in mind. And just like the terrorist, the addict parent destructively controls with an intended goal in mind. The goal is to "feel better." Addicts who have a dependency relationship with their children control their fears by controlling their children. Children of addict parents who are controlled by the addict's use of coercion, grow up terrorized and not feeling safe. The emotional effects of coercion are more damaging to a child than to a child who has been beaten. A child growing up in coercion will always be wishing for something (bad) to happen in order for them to relieve their anxiety of waiting for something (bad) to happen.

---

"Intimidation" is a form of coercion. This destructive control behavior is designed to produce fear (terror) through intimidation in order to maintain control. Considering the size, strength, experience, and knowledge of an adult as compared to a child, intimidation is easy for an addicted parent to achieve. Lack of knowledge, strength, size, and experience on the part of the child ends up being a destructive control opportunity for the addict parent to make use of. They'll use the opportunity to intimidate in a destructive way by leading the child into feeling that they are somehow inadequate. This is accomplished by projecting a sense of multiple inadequacies onto the child i.e. lack of knowledge, strength, size, and experience. The child's resulting fears of inadequacy are then used by the addict parent to control the child. The following statements are examples of phases used by the addict parent in order to intimidate and produce fear.

(said from an angry victim stance)

• "You should have known better!"
• "I don't care if you're tired!"
• "I don't care if you're too little!"
• "I don't care if you can't!"
• "Hurry-up pokie (slowpoke)!"
• "Get going right now!"
• "I don't care if you think you can't do that!"
• "You're just stupid, that's your problem!"
• "Your problem is that you're too stupid to remember!"

Doomsayer

"The worst is going to happen if . . . . ." This type of destructive control behavior is used by the addict parent in order to shame, scare, or terrorize the child into compliance. The addicted parent will predict some catastrophe and then use it to control the child. The addicted parent might say something like, "If you do this, then ________ will happen. And it will really be terrible; something really bad will happen to you."

I remember spilling sugar when I was little. My mother turned to me full of terror and fury and said, "Now ants are going to come into the house!" The idea was to instill shame, terror, or fear into me in order to force (control) me into not making the same mistake twice. Doomsaying is also a form of coercion. That is to say controlling by use of fear, terror, and shame.

Unfortunately, the thought had not occurred to her that cleaning up the sugar would change that "catastrophic" outcome. Her perceptions and reactions to this "catastrophic" outcome were based on information that she received as a child. And left unexamined, she continues to react or overreact in response to these same kinds of events as an adult doomsayer, and with no forethought as to the possible changes that have occurred over time or alternate coping strategies for the situation.

Playing the Victim

Playing the Victim is an extremely effective technique used to control someone (especially children). The addict parent controls the child's behavior by becoming the so-called wounded victim. The child might say or do something that the addict parent becomes uncomfortable with. In reaction to the child's behavior, the addict parent responds by saying something like this:

(said from an angry victim stance)

• "How could you do that to your mother?"
• "Mommy thinks you don't love her anymore."
• "You don't care about me at all, do you."
• "You're hurting mommy. You're driving her crazy and no one will be able to take care of you then!"

This destructive control behavior uses false guilt to control the child. When the addict parent plays the victim, the child looks inward and thinks: "How could I do that to my parent . . . . . She (or He) looks so hurt and sounds so angry or depressed . . . . She's (or He's) talking and looking at me; therefore I must have caused her (or his) pain . . . . I'd better be good so I don't hurt her (or him) anymore. . . . . she's (or he's) the only one I have to take care of me and the alternative of taking care of myself scares me to death because that's impossible for myself as a child to do. I could die. I'm sure I'd die."

The goal of an addict who is addicted to their child is to "feel better" by controlling the child. As stated before, control is equated to compliance and compliance is equated to no frustration. No frustration or conflict is equated to security and security equates to a happy addict. Unfortunately, Children of addict parents grow up full of false guilt or shame as a result of being trained by the addict parent's use of playing the victim. They (the children) automatically feel guilty, terrified, and anxious when they come in contact with anyone playing the victim.

---

Shaming and Abusive Language

Shaming and Abusive Language are destructive control behaviors that use shaming remarks, names, and labels to control the child. Shaming is not the same as false guilt. Shaming is judging with the intent to humiliate and discount the child's sense of self-worth.

An addicted parent may see or hear something that the child has done or said and begin to "feel bad." In response to their own feelings of bad-ness or shame, they'll try to project these internal feelings externally onto the child. The addicted parent will do this by saying things in a victim-like way such as,

(said from an angry victim stance)

• "Why did you do that?."
• "What a stupid thing to do."
• "Why are you so stupid?"
• "I thought I raised you better than that."
• "You ought to know better."
• "You should of known better."
• "You're embarrassing me and pissing me off."
• "Stop that right now; everyone is looking; you're being naughty (or a bad) girl/ boy."

Shame is designed to lead the child into believing that they are somehow inadequate, strange, or not good enough. The addict "feels better" by expelling their internal feelings of shame or bad-ness and projecting that shame or bad-ness onto the child. In this way, the child has been used as a drug in order for the addict to feel better or avoid "feeling bad."

Neglect and Abandonment

Neglect and Abandonment is present in any relationship where one or more of the individuals in the relationship is an addict. Abandonment refers to physically or "emotionally" leaving the child in favor of the addiction. Neglect refers to the lack of either "emotional" or physical maintenance that a child requires in order to grow and develop. The absence of food, clothing, shelter, and medical care are examples of physical neglect or abandonment. The absence of nurturing, compassion, hugging, holding, listening, and other kinds of "emotional" support, are examples of "emotional" neglect or abandonment.

It is hard to see "emotional" neglect or abandonment. The addict may appear to be home all the time and apparently taking care of the child's needs. However, "emotional" neglect or abandonment can't be seen without spending time observing the addict and child in the relationship. Addicts "emotionally" abandon or neglect everything in favor of satisfying their addiction (this includes addictions to work, exercise, food, sex, gambling, religion, etc). Children who have addict parents are forced to forfeit their relationship with their addict parent in favor of the addiction. The addiction is stronger than the child. Even though the child is an object of addiction, the addiction takes precedence. By that I mean, from an outside view (a view from outside the family) it will appear that the child is receiving attention, when in fact, it is the addiction itself (the child as an object of addiction) which is receiving the attention and not the child as a sentient being.

Talking in "lecture form" is a type of "emotional" neglect or abandonment. Lecturing a child is talking to a child or at a child without asking them for their opinion or listening to them in return. It's a one-sided conversation where the addict uses the child in order to expel internal feelings or thoughts. The child's identity or "emotional self" is not acknowledged or affirmed in a conversation that uses lecture form.

Excessively talking, interrupting, and competing for conversation are also types of "emotional" neglect or abandonment. A child never really gets heard in these kinds of interaction because the addict parent is thinking about what to say next instead of listening. They are preoccupied with (addicted to) controlling the conversation instead of listening to what's being said by the child.

"Silence" is another way to "emotionally" neglect or abandon a child. By not sharing anything intimate or vulnerable with the child, or not sharing information that the child needs to grow and develop, the child is " emotionally" and "intellectually" neglected and abandoned. The child is left alone without "emotional" or "intellectual" information to grow and develop. Silence is another way of destructively controlling. That is to say, information is power and holding onto information empowers the addict by not having to feel vulnerable. The child will never know a sense of comfort by knowing that the addict has also felt vulnerable at times or has felt vulnerable as a child.

Emotional or physical neglect and abandonment are used as control techniques by the addict parent. If an object of addiction becomes too difficult for the addict to use i.e. control, the object will be discarded. In a similar way, if the child of an addict parent becomes too difficult to use, i.e. control or to make compliant, he or she will be discarded. Children of addict parents learn that in order to stay accepted in their family they must remain easy to use, and be without boundary (do nothing to frustrate the addict). Children of addict parents learn how to become easy to use by becoming invisible; which means to become compliant and without needs, or suffer the consequences of being apparent, real, noticeable, with boundaries, and having needs.

Talking to keep distance (or avoiding intimacy).

I notice that my father talks compulsively as a way to distance himself from the listener. I have noticed myself doing the same thing. By reacting to what's being said instead of listening to what's being said, I end up thinking of what to say next and never hear what's being said. Children growing up in addiction may experience this type of "emotional" abandonment as "taking to keep a distance." A conversation is occurring but no one is being heard. The addict controls intimacy (emotional closeness), or the lack of it, by talking and reacting to what is being said as a way to distance themselves from the listener.

---

Addicts also distance themselves from the listener by using the word "You" in place of the word "I." Addicts express their opinions, feelings, beliefs, or experiences by using the word "You " in place of the word "I." This creates confusion in the conversation and places distance between themselves and the listener. A child growing up with an addicted parent who uses this kind of conversation style experiences the interaction as being confusing, attacking, and lonely (emotionally abandoned and neglected).

When expressing themselves with this kind of "You" vs. "I" distancing behavior they project responsibility for their feelings onto the listener and at the same time create distance between themselves and the listener. The following is an example list of "You" statements versus "I" statements.

• You: "You know when you feel mad how you . . . . . . . ."
• I: "I know when I feel mad how I . . . . . . . ."

• You: "You'd think you'd be able to figure it out or at least . . . . . . ."
• I: "I'd have thought I'd have been able to figure it out or at least . ."

• You: "Yesterday I got caught in traffic and you know how you get ."
• I: "Yesterday I got caught in traffic and I know when I get . . ."

• You: "You know everybody, you'd think would have . . . ."
• I: "I would have thought everyone would have . . . ."

"Gathering armies" is another way addict parents create distance and at the same time create artificial power. As a way to distance themselves, inflate themselves, and artificially gather support for an opinion or feeling they are having, they use phrases and words which lead the listener to believe that more than one (more than the addict alone) is in support of an opinion or feeling they are expressing. Examples:

All of these statements create artificial power and replace the addict's responsibility for their opinions or feelings alone, with the combined responsibility of other people. It's rare that a non-recovering addict would take responsibility for an opinion or feeling alone, especially if that opinion or feeling has the potential to create conflict. The avoidance of taking responsibility alone is also referred to as blaming. By artificially inflating themselves, they believe that they are actively reducing their risk of conflict. Conflicts create feeling; which create intimacy. Feelings and intimacy "go hand in hand" and addict parents are unable to cope with strong feelings or intimacy. As stated before, they lack the coping skills and the knowledge to do so.

Disapproval, dirty looks, and sarcasm (as discounting)

Disapproval, dirty looks, and sarcasm are all types of destructive control behaviors that the addict parent uses to keep their objects of addiction easy to use. All of these destructive control behaviors are abusive. All of these behaviors are used as a way to "discount" i.e. to belittle, minimize, ignore, or emotionally abandon the child. Discounting may be subtle or dramatic. As an example say that the child shares something painful (emotionally or physically) about him or herself with the addict parent. Do to the addict's dependency nature in the relationship, he or she will, in turn, begin to "feel bad" about what they are hearing from the child. Since addict parents are without coping skills for feeling bad, they react or lash out in order to avoid hearing anything that they feel might cause them to "feel bad." As a way to destructively disconnect from the pain they are experiencing (feeling bad), they will try to control the information they are hearing by discounting it. "It" being the child's pain which in effect discounts the child's sense of worthiness to have pain.

---

More specifically, sarcasm is hidden anger or resentment "coming out sideways." Coming out "sideways" means to be hidden, unclear in origin, or unclear in intent. The child hears words that the addict parent is saying but experiences a message other than the words were intended to communicate. The following examples compare a sarcastic statement (sarcasm) and its mixed message, with a clear statement (non-sarcastic) and its non-mixed message. From addict-parent to object-child:

Clear: "Thank-you."

Message received by the child: "I sincerely appreciate what you've done for me."

 

Sarcasm: "Thank-you . . . ."

Message received by the child: "What a jerk you are. You've just victimized me."

---

Clear: "You're welcome."

Message received by the child: "Thanks for acknowledging my action."

 

Sarcasm: "You're welcome . . . ."

Message received by the child: "What a jerk you are. You've just victimized me."

---

Clear: "Yea I really like that."

Message received by the child: "I really enjoy that"

 

Sarcasm: "Yea I really like that . . . ."

Message received by the child: "What a jerk you are. You've just victimized me. How stupid can you be?"

---

Clear: "Sure."

Message received by the child: "Yes."

 

Sarcasm: "Sure . . . ."

Message received by the child: "No or I hate it. What a jerk you are. You've just victimized me. Don't you have any brains?"

---

Clear: "Thanks for sharing."

Message received by the child: "Thank-you for your information. I've appreciated what you've done. I've enjoyed getting to know you.

 

Sarcasm: "Thanks for sharing . . . ."

Message received by the child: "I do not appreciate what you've said or done. What a jerk you are. You've just victimized me."

Sarcasm is an attack of hidden nature. The addict parent's inference is that the child has victimized them in some way. The "some way" is hidden and not revealed. The child is left injured and without cause or explanation. They only know that they feel bad for some unknown reason.

Dirty looks are facial expressions that discount, ignore, minimize, or (as with sarcasm) disapprove of what the child is saying or doing. Dirty looks are types of sarcasm reduced even further in clarity. Instead of unclear or sarcastic word messages, the addict parent uses unclear facial expressions.

Disapproval, dirty looks, sarcasm, and teasing are all discounting and minimizing techniques used by the addict to alter their (the addict's) feelings about what they are hearing from the child by attempting to alter the child's reality about what they are feeling.

Disapproval, dirty looks, sarcasm, and teasing are types of attacks. When Janet Geringer Woititz refers to guessing at what normal is, for children of alcoholics (addict parents), I believe that to include the inability to distinguish an attack from a non-attack. As objects of addiction, these children have psychologically trained their feelings to become unavailable to them as a way to cope with repeated attacks or the threat of attack. As a result of this, their feelings have become so unavailable to them that they subsequently become emotionally and cognitively unaware of an attack at the time it occurs (4).

This phenomenon is also described by Whitfield (1989) and Cermak (1986) as "psychic numbing." Children raised as objects of addiction are under attack or the threat of attack throughout the duration of their childhood and sometimes beyond. They are like combat soldiers waiting for an attack to occur. Cermak (1986) writes that during periods of extreme stress, such as an attack or the waiting for an attack to occur (the threat of death, injury, and the feeling of being unable to flee), "combat soldiers are often called upon to act regardless of how they are feeling. Their survival depends upon their ability to suspend feelings in favor of taking steps to ensure their safety." This is a characteristic of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder or PTSD. In the case of children trained to be objects of addiction, you might say that they were forced into fighting a war without weapons to protect themselves and they were unable to see the enemy. This is one of the reasons why so many children of dysfunctional families withdraw into isolation. It's the last resort in fighting an unseen enemy and fighting an enemy without a weapon of defense. You might say that this guide is an exposure of the enemy by exposing the attack methods i.e. the destructive control behaviors that hurt.

---

In addition to the unavailability of emotion, they are not sure they've been attacked because there is no one there to validate the attack. This is also a characteristic of PTSD in that "the person's support system includes those who encourage denial" (Cermak 40). In consideration of these points, disapproval, dirty looks, .i.sarcasm, and teasing are types of covert attacks because they are (1) unknown or hidden from the child either by the child's need to suspend their feelings (deny their feelings) in order to ensure their survival or (2) because of the denial used by the addict parents and other family members (hiding the enemy). Destructive control behaviors as discussed in this section of the guide are all forms of an emotional or physical attack on the child.

Whichever of these techniques is used it will add up to: "How can I control the object of my addiction in order for me to feel better (or not to feel bad)?"

What the uninformed addict doesn't know is that, no one or no thing is responsible for the feelings of someone else. We each physiologically and psychologically generate our own experiences of feeling in response to a stimuli. The stimuli is not the source nor the trained response socialized into the addict. The addict's trained or socialized response is his or her own affair exclusive of the stimuli.

Addict parents assume that because they are "feeling bad," someone else must be at fault. They're unable to accept themselves as being at fault i.e. take responsibility for their own feelings and actions because to be "at fault," when they were growing up as children in their own dysfunctional environments, meant that abuse would occur. As a result of this conditioning, addicts are scared to death of "feeling at fault" for anything. They will blame as an instinctive survival response when they experience the perception of having to survive. Needing to survive includes avoiding injury, pain, or humiliation.

The addict parent pattern taught to them, when he or she was a child was to blame someone else for their actions and for how they feel. And as a result of this unexamined training they continue the pattern by blaming other people for their feelings and actions including their children. Children who carry the load of feeling responsible for the feelings and the actions of their addict parent(s) carry a heavy load. Some loads are so heavy that children of addict parents become sick, commit suicide, and even homicide in order to escape the load. As a result of using this destructive control behavior, the first load that children who were raised as an object of an addiction will carry is:

• The load of feeling responsible for the feelings of their addict parent(s).

Note: The load list is also called the "old baggage" list. Old baggage is an accumulation of past events and psychological double binds which go unresolved and consequently load a person down emotionally and physically.

Since the goal of an addict parent is to not to "feel bad" and they assign that responsibility to the child, the child of an addict parent will never be able to share anything painful about themselves with their addict parent. As stated before, when the child tries to share something painful with their addict parent, the addict parent will react or respond to the sharing of that information in a negative and non-supporting way (discounting). There is a painful and invisible cord of dependency which ties or connects the addict with their object of addiction. As a result of this invisible cord, when the object is in pain, the addict is in pain; which causes them to recoil or pull back from their object of addiction; either that or they use some method of disguising, discounting, or diminishing; causing the object's pain to become invisible or unknown to them (the addict parent).

Addict parents are scared to death of having bad feelings and will repress them at any cost. So what are "bad feelings" to an addict parent? An addict parent considers bad feelings to be any feelings of sadness, grief, fear, anger, disappointment, frustration, guilt, loneliness, shame, or any other feelings of pain (including physical pain). Children of addicts cannot share sadness, grief, fear, anger, disappointment, frustration, guilt, loneliness, shame, or any other feelings of pain. Because of this phenomena, children of addicts are forced to cope with their pain alone. Addicts are unable to cope with feelings of pain. Children of addicts, as a result of this kind of destructive control conditioning, equate having pain with being abused or the need to hide their pain in order to survive.

As stated before, the most common reaction of an addict parent to a child's pain would be to try and discount or minimize that pain. When the child shares something painful, usually in the form of a complaint, the addict parent discounts or minimizes what's being said by saying things to the child like:

• "Oh-h-h that doesn't hurt."
• "Just forget about it, look on the bright side."
• "Just ignore it."
• "Don't worry about it."
• "Remember, every cloud has a silver lining."
• "At least you still have . . . . . "
• "You're bugging me; you don't have to bug me now."
• "You think that's bad, when I was your age . . . . ."

Whichever phrase is used, it will be designed to discount and minimize the child's feelings (the child's pain). The addict's objective will be to alter his or her feelings (the addict's feelings) by trying to alter the reality of what his or her child is feeling. In this way they are using the child in a dependency way in order to feel good, better, or avoid "feeling bad." As a result, the child's pain (feelings) goes unaccepted and non-supported by the addict parent and remains repressed and unresolved for the child for years. The child now carries two loads:

• The load of feeling responsible for the feelings of their addict parent(s).
• And the load of their own unresolved grief and repressed pain (coping with pain alone).

---

"I consider empathy and dependency to be very confusing issues for Americans today. I also consider love and pity to be equally as confused. A common phrase heard in recovery these days is: Where are all the healthy people, why are they so hard to find? This leads me to believe that the is an immense amount of dysfunctional behavior being displayed by a lot of people. This is not meant as an attack; It's only an observation for consideration."

Perfectionism

Perfectionism is a destructive control behavior designed to keep from "feeling bad" about mistakes. Addict parents, and eventually their children as objects of addiction, believe that mistakes are invitations for disapproval and abuse. Disapproval and abuse are equated to not having "good feelings." And not having "good feelings" is equated to terror. It's the terror that precedes and impulsively propels the perfectionism. Thoughts of imperfection (or mistakes) create an immediate response of terror and the corresponding need to control. An addict parent will perceive things to be "out of control" when they aren't perfect, on time, exactly right, exactly known for sure, etc. They also believe that it is possible to avoid disapproval, rejection, conflict, and abuse, by being perfect and avoiding mistakes; or intensively striving to know the outcome for sure.

The children of addict parents, as objects of addiction, are required to be perfect. Referring back to the analogy of the bottle of booze, a bottle of booze is unable to make mistakes which would cause this previously discussed impulsive response to terror in an addict parent. Booze just sits there . . . in silence . . . . , until it is used. Addict parents expect the same kind of usage and flawless-invisible behavior from their children. Perfectionism adds a third load to the children of addicts; the load of being flawless and invisible. The load list for children of addict parents now includes the following:

• The load of feeling responsible for the feelings of their addict parent(s).
• The load of their own unresolved grief and repressed pain (coping with pain alone).
• The load of having to be perfect (or invisible).

Because of the denial of terror which addict parents have in conjunction with making mistakes, they do not have compassion for mistakes. Incidentally, compassion gives children permission to learn how to learn from mistakes, instead of being abused or controlled by the resulting fear of making mistakes.

Perfectionism also requires that a person be without limitations. A limitless person is able to survive by doing anything and everything perfectly; and with the least amount of assistance from the addict parent. As with mistakes, addict parents lack compassion for limitations. A person (child or adult) with limits is seen as defective, weak, being needy, and that being the case, susceptible to death or abuse. A child with limitations is considered to be an aggravation and a burden. An addict parent sees a child with age appropriate limitations as something that they'll have to make adjustments or accommodations for; which causes hostile resentments within the addict parent due to their own deprivation of needs as an infant, child, adolescent, or adult. (Whitfield 1989). They are so in need that they insist on having their needs met immediately by the child, adolescents, or other adults in their environment regardless of any age, intelligence, physical, sexual, or emotional limitation. In this alone they (addict parents) are an immense boundary-less terror for children and adolescents to be around.

The following is a list of perfectionistic messages that the addict parent may use to instil perfectionism and promote limitlessness in their child as an object of addiction.

(said from an angry victim stance)

• "Are you done yet?" ****
• "Are you sure about that?" ****
• "Be careful!" **
• "Cleanup that mess!" **
• "Do I have to do everything around here?" **
• "Do I have to do everything for you?" **
• "Do I have to do everything myself!" **
• "Don't be late!" ***
• "Don't bother me now!" *
• "Don't bother me!" *
• "Don't break anything!" *
• "Don't do a half-ass job!" *
• "Don't fight!" *
• "Don't forget!" *
• "Don't hit anyone!" *
• "Don't hurt yourself!" *
• "Don't make a mess!" *
• "Don't make any noise!" *
• "Don't screw this up!" *
• "Don't screw-up!" *
• "Hurry-up!" **
• "I don't believe you!" (explain now!) **
• "I know you can do better than this!" **
• "I thought you were smart-er than that." ****

---

• "If it's worth doing, it's worth doing right!" **
• "If it's worth doing, it's worth doing well!" **
• "Is this all?" (give me more now!) **
• "Is this it?" (give me more now!) **
• "Is this the best you can do?" You doing your best?) ****
• "Pick that up right now!" **
• "Stop that crying!" **
• "That's a terrible thing to do!" (Stop it now!) **
• "You are going to hurt someone!" *
• "You are going to hurt yourself!" *
• "You can do better than that!" **
• "You don't care about anybody but yourself! DO YOU. . . ." **
• "You'd better be right!" ****
• "You'd better do it again!" **
• "You'd better do it over till you get it right!" **
• "You'd better do that right now!" **
• "You'd better get this done right now!" **
• "You'd better learn to do this yourself!" **
• "You'd better make sure!" **
• "You'd better not be lying to me!" ***
• "You'd better not forget!" *
• "You're being bad!" ***
• "You're being irresponsible!" ***
• "You're going to be late!" *
• "You're going to break that!" *
• "You're going to have to learn to do this yourself!" **

The hidden message in each of the above phases is that the child is imperfect (stupid, dumb, or lacking in ability) as they are as a child.

The sanctions or reinforcements for the statements above:

* You'll be in trouble if you do. I'll injure or punish you, or God will injure or punish you, or someone will injure or punish you. I need to use you to feel better, Now!

** You'll be in trouble if you don't. I'll injure or punish you, or God will injure or punish you, or someone will injure or punish you. I need to use you to feel better, Now!

*** You'll be in trouble if you are. I'll injure or punish you, or God will injure or punish you, or someone will injure or punish you. I need to use you to feel better, Now!

**** You'll be in trouble if you aren't. I'll injure or punish you, or God will injure or punish you, or someone will injure or punish you. I need to use you to feel better, Now!

"Conversation perfection" is a style of controlled conversation and perfectionism. It's a type of maneuvering behavior that shapes the conversation so that it may be accepted (or heard) by the addict.

When I experience this type of destructive control behavior from an addict I find myself feeling resentful, frustrated, angry, and thinking, "No, I don't think that's what I said!" The destructive control behavior includes:

A- The addict "adding" information to what I have said as if what I have said was inadequate.

Example:

My Statement: "I think the movie (we saw) was great."

Response: "Yea, great and long too. Next time we should bring overnight bags."

B- The addict interrupting to "steer the information" they are hearing in another direction.

Example:

My statement: "I think the . . . . .

Response: "Think the movie was long, right? Next time we're going to need overnight bags."

---

C- The addict responding with information that "restates" the information they've heard in a more acceptable form.

Example:

My statement: "I think the movie was great."

Response: "You mean the movie was long don't you?"

---

D- The addict "arguing with the information" to reshape it and create conflict.

Example:

My statement: "I think the movie was great."

Response: "No, the movie was long."

---

How ever the response is designed it will alter, add, or change the information that the addict is hearing in order for it to be more acceptable. This is one of the many reasons children of addict parents begin to believe they are unacceptable. Their action and their speech appear to always be under scrutiny or correction.

By controlling a conversation the addict parent censors what they hear in order not to feel bad. The result, when speaking with a child, is the censuring (abandonment) of the child. There is a lack of support or affirmation for the child's belief system. Additionally, the child is expected to acknowledge or affirm the addict's belief system.

Leading in to a facet of the next control behavior, children of addict parents are unable to compete in a healthy way in controlled conversations such as described earlier. It's impossible to do without "straining beyond" their age appropriate limitations. Straining to be heard is a part of the "required to be without limitations" behavior described earlier. They (the children) are unable to be comfortable being themselves and still get their listening needs met. At family get-togethers, in dysfunctional families, children and adults compete for conversation in order to be heard, but no one ever really gets heard.

Control as Competition

Addicts compulsively try to win as a way to maintain control and feel good (or avoid feeling bad). Winning is associated with perfectionism and controlling the outcome. The denied terror in the perfectionism, and the resulting need to control the outcome, propel the addict parent into the need to win. As a result of this, and the lack of their own self worth due to being raised as objects of addiction themselves, they choose to exploit their children in order to gain a sense of worth. When a child tries to say something important, the addict parent will respond in a way that leads the child to believe that the statement they have made was of no consequence. When a child tries to express a sense of accomplishment, the addict responds in a way that leads the child to believe that the accomplishment they've achieved was of no consequence. When the child tries to compete for attention, the addict parent responds by switching into "compete mode" with the intent to compete, win, ignore, and repress the child.

"Despite what competitive parents may claim to want for their children, their hidden agenda is to ensure that their children can't outdo them." (Forward 105).

Unless the child acts out or rebels in some way, in order to be recognized as an identity or a person, and not the object of an addiction, the addict will continue to compete and repress the child. The addict's addiction to win is stronger than the child's identity and welfare. The weight of unhealthy (dependency) competition is something that children of dysfunctional families experience as: "not feeling good enough." Another unhealthy load, the load of "not feeling good enough," is added to the load list.

• The load of feeling responsible for the feelings of their addict parent(s).
• The load of their own unresolved grief and repressed pain (coping with pain alone).
• The load of having to be perfect (or invisible).
• The load of not ever feeling good enough.

Approval seeking or fishing for acceptance

Approval seeking or fishing for acceptance is another load that children of addicts bear. "I need you to make me feel ok." Children of addict parents will be used like a drug, by the addict parent, for emotional and physiological support to feel better (feel approved of, accepted, ok, affirmed, or not in pain and anxiety). Not having received the emotional support and skills to "feel better" from their own parents or guardians, addict parents continue to seek and "fish" for the missing approval, good feelings, and emotional support, from their children. The load of emotional support is now added to the load list.

• The load of feeling responsible for the feelings of their addict parent(s).
• The load of their own unresolved grief and repressed pain (coping with pain alone).
• The load of having to be perfect (or invisible).
• The load of not ever feeling good enough.
• The load of emotional support for the addict.

Addict parents will "fish" for approval, acceptance, ok-ed-ness, or affirmation in an infinite number of covert ways. A child might hear their addictive parent say things like:

(said from a depressed or helpless victim stance)

• "Oh, I don't think I'm very good at that."
• "Tell mommy you like her new dress, don't ya like my new dress?"
• "Don't ya love yer old dad?, tell daddy ya love him."
• "Tell mommy you love her."
• "Do you still love mommy?"
• "Do you still love daddy?"
• "You're so smart/ pretty/ handsome, I wish I could be that way."
• "I'm just not good at doing this."
• "I don't think I'm good at playing games."
• "I guess I'm just getting old."
• "I'm not getting any younger; you should understand that."
• "I'm not as young as I used to be."
• "You probably think this sounds stupid or silly, but . . . . . "
• "You're doing (this). Right? Right? Right?
• "You're just (whatever). Right? Right? Right?

---

All of the phrases, whichever or however they are used, have one thing in common. They are designed to trick or coerce the child in to offering some sort of approval and emotional support for the addict and their behavior. It is a very crazy making game that addicts play to win, with no rules. The goal is to solicit a response from the child that would lead the addict to "feel better." It's a dependency relationship. And the other players (the children) in the game, don't count.

Lying to avoid disapproval is another approval seeking behavior which uses the child to feel better. An addict parent fears disapproval and conflict; and as a result of this fear, they lie to avoid disapproval or conflict. The addict offers information and/ or something that he or she believes the child will approve of (in this way the child is being used like a drug for the addict to feel better). The information and/ or the something ends up to be a falsehood, leading the child to believe that they are unworthy of the original offering. In addition, the child becomes angry and hurt as a result of being betrayed by the addict's falsehood. Children of addicts often feel "let down" and lied to, as a result of their addict parent's need to control disapproval and/ or avoid conflict. Lying creates distrust. Distrust is common within dysfunctional families (it's part of the crazy making game). Distrust is also part of the emotional load (the repressed pain load) carried by child raised as objects of addiction.

False Caring

Another way addicts use children as emotional support is by offering a sense of " false caring." False caring is where the addict pretends to be concerned with how the child's life is going, or what the child thinks, as a way to invite conversation about their own life, or opinion, and gain listening support at the same time. As an example, the addict may say something like the following:

• "How's your day going?"
• "Have you been sick lately?"
• "What do you think about . . . . . . ?"
• "Have you gotten . . . . . . . . . done?"
• "Do you like . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ?"
• "What do you think of . . . . . . . . ?"
• "Do you think it's ok to . . . . . . . .?"

The addict will usually listen momentarily to the child's response, then interrupt at the first opportunity to talk about the topic in relationship to themselves. This leads the child to feel like their addict parent wasn't interested in hearing what it was they had to say in the first place. In this way the child is being abandoned and repressed. In addition to feeling abandoned or repressed in the conversation, the child is now expected to offer listening support as well. What ever the question is, however it is phased, it will have a "hidden agenda" for being asked. The hidden agenda will be to use the child (like a drug) for emotional and physiological support in order to feel better.

When this happens to me I feel like saying, "Why did you ask me about how I feel if you weren't going to listen? And why ask, if the whole purpose for your asking was to talk about yourself while I sit here expected to listen to you; especially someone who isn't going to listen to me?" The situation most common to me would be in the following conversation example:

Addict: (The bait) "How's your day going?"

Child: (The hook) "Fine, except the lunch line was really long at school today."

Addict: (The sinker) "Oh I know what you mean. Today I went to the bank and the line was awful. The tellers must have been on break or something. That bank really needs to do something about that. All I had to do was cash a small check and they couldn't even take the time to let me go ahead of the other people. I'm thinking of changing banks. Maybe that will teach them a lesson and they'll start thinking about what it means to lose customers. The more I think about it, the more I think I'll just do that. You know that pisses me off the more I think about waiting there. I'm a good customer and don't deserve to be treated like that, I . . . . . etc."

The child's frustrations with the lunch line were never really heard. Addict parents believe that by relating a story to the child of similar occurrence, they have in fact listened to the child. In truth, they have reacted to the child's information and not listened to the child. The child's feelings were repressed, abandoned and not heard. In addition the child was used as listening support (adding insult to injury). The addict baited the child into a false sense of concern for the child's feelings, thoughts, or opinions; when in fact, the addict just wanted (needed) to use the child as a listener in order to talk about their day with no intention of listening to the child in return. In this way, the child is used as listening (emotional or physiological) support for the addict in order for the addict to "feel better."

---

 

The next three destructive control behaviors . . . . ,

Offering unauthentic approval for some gain,

Gifts or money offered for some gain,

Offering anything for gain (of some hidden goal),

. . . . . are just variations of the fishing for approval game.

The one thing that all three behaviors have in common is the same kind of hidden gain or agenda; which is the agenda of using the child like a drug to feel better by seeking approval, affirmation, acceptance, and ok-ed-ness from the child. When a child receives a gift from an addict parent, they are then expected or manipulated into giving something back. This is conditional love, i.e. "I'll give you this gift if you do something in return so I can feel good (I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine)." In this way, the child is being used like a drug. During the use of these types of destructive control behaviors the addict will make statements similar to the ones below.

• "Here's your gift, isn't it big/ good/ pretty/ just what you wanted/ etc.?"(gift for gain).
• "You're such a good helper, would you get that for mommy?"(unauthentic approval for gain).
• "You're so pretty, now don't dirty your dress." (unauthentic approval for gain).
• "I know I can trust you, now don't drop that cake." (unauthentic approval for gain).
• "I got your gift early, so you could take it with you. Aren't you happy?"(gift for gain).
• "I bought this for you because your so special. By the way, have you cleaned up your room today?" (gift for gain).
• "I know you like this, don't you?" (something else for gain).
• "Here is that toy you really wanted, now don't break it." (gift for gain).
• "Tell your grandma that you really liked the gifts she gave you." (gift for gain).
• "What do you say?" (Thank-you) "That's right." (gift for gain).

The "agenda" of addiction is to "feel better" and "avoid feeling bad." The child, as an object of addiction, is being used to support the addict in the addiction. A role reversal is in effect as a result of the addiction agenda. Parents are considered to be responsible, as part of their parenting responsibilities, for helping their children to feel worthy by supporting them emotionally as well as physically. In the case of children raised in dysfunctional families, where one or both parents are addicts, the situation is reversed. The child is expected to take on the parenting role by emotionally and physiologically supporting the addict parent. Thus, from the child's terrified point of view, the following occurs; "I'll have to take care of you (or be ok) so that you'll be able (or be ok) to take care of me."

When helping isn't helping

When helping isn't helping is when it's an addiction. Addicts use this type of destructive control behavior as another way to seek approval; approval from the child which they need in order to "feel better." The script for an addict using "helping behavior" as a cover or hidden agenda for approval seeking (in order to feel better) is:

"I need to use you in order to feel better." If you'll let me help you, you'll feel better about me and I'll feel better about me. You'll like me and I'll like me. And if help is refused or rejected,"WHAT?, YOU DON'T WANT MY HELP?, HOW COULD YOU DO THIS TO ME?, WHAT A TERRIBLE THING YOU'VE DONE TO ME." "WHAT A JERK YOU ARE FOR NOT LETTING ME HELP YOU."

Children raised with this type of destructive control behavior will feel the extreme weight of this type of hidden approval seeking agenda in the form of helping. Addicts will offer help and even force help on to someone in order to feel better. They (the addict parent) will require that their objects of addiction (the recipients of their help) be accepting of their help. Rejection of their help is seen (by the addict parent) as being victimized by the person refusing the help.

(said from an angry victim stance, or left unsaid and held as a victim-like resentment)

• "How could you possibly not want my help, after all the things I've done for you. You've really hurt me. How could you hurt me like this?"

In addition, they assume that they have done something wrong by offering help which was not accepted. Addicts offer help or use helping behavior as a way to use people to feel accepted. Children of addict parents have been abused, beaten, and abandoned for refusing to allow their addict parent to force help onto them. Unfortunately, in the name of helping, addicts will use their children in order to feel better. This is another form of conditional love. That is to say, "I'll assist you, but only on my terms. Your terms (or needs) are unrecognizable or are of no account to me."

There's an omnipotent and egocentric attitude that accompanies the helping behavior:

"I can help you better than you can help yourself."

AND,

"If I don't help you, you're going to pay for it."

(Translation: I'm unable to feel good unless I help you. I need to use you in order to feel better. You'd better necessitate my feelings of good or I'll injure you).

These scripts are the messages that children of addict parents receive about helping. Helping of this kind is an addiction or a "compulsion." The 52nd printing of Roget's College Thesaurus lists the following entries under the word "compulsion."

Compulsion. "verbs- compel, force, make, drive, coerce, constrain, enforce, necessitate, oblige; force upon, press; cram, thrust or force down the throat; make a point of, insist upon, take no denial; put down, dragoon; extort, wring from; drag into; bind over; pin or tie down; require, tax, put in force, put teeth in; restrain; hold down; commandeer, draft, conscript, impress" (65).

Some religions add further complications to this type of destructive control behavior by promoting messages such as:

• "Helping is the Christian thing to do."
• "God will love you if you help your fellow man."
• "We reap what we sow (If I help you, you'll help me). "
• "Forgive them for they know not what they do; help them anyway."
• "Good Christians help people."
• "Do onto others, as you would want them to do onto you (Addict's hidden agenda: If I help you, you're supposed to help me)."

---

These reinforcements add justification and give the addict sanctioned permission to compel themselves into helping behavior as a destructive control behavior.

One of the problems of dependency is "intense need." This intensity causes a got-to-get-it-all-done-right-now behavior. As a result of this behavior, addicts ignore asking for permission to help, or for that matter, permission for anything if they conclude that it might obstruct their need to "feel better" by doing so. Addicts for the most part do not wait until they have been asked for help. They force help. And "forced help" is a "boundary violation." They are operating on the principal that a child is an object of use and therefore does not need to be asked for permission to be used.

Imagine the child to be a country. Imagine that country to be surrounded by borders. These borders are the boundaries for that country. When these borders are invaded without consent, the act is considered to be hostile. The hostile invasion of a country is called a boundary violation. Similarly, the hostile invasion of a child is called a boundary violation. (Choose to see "Projection" later in this section for a further explanation of "Boundaries.)"

Excessive probing and lack of privacy

Excessive probing and lack of privacy are also "boundary violations." Excessive probing is where the addict probes for a purpose and that purpose is to gain information which is destructively used against the child. A child waits in fear of information being taken by force (excessive probing) that will be used against them. The information is extracted by the addict in an act of coercion and terrorism. A child looses their sense of safety whenever there is a boundary violation.

Excessive probing would include any statement that is designed to access the child's thoughts in order to gain information which was originally protected by the child before it was extracted by the addict parent. Examples of destructive probing statements:

(said from an angry victim stance)

• "Tell me why you did that, and don't lie!"
• "I know you did this so you might as well tell me the truth!"
• "I'm sure I saw you do that, don't lie to me!"
• "Where have you been!"
• "Do you think I'm stupid? I can tell your lying to me (You must be holding something back or trying to hide something)!"

All of these excessive and destructive probing statements are designed to invade the child's boundaries and force them to surrender information against their will without regard to their emotional safety. An addict only knows that in order to avoid "feeling bad" he or she must invade and control information that was originally controlled (protected) by the child. In an unhealthy, chimerical, or distorted view from addict to child, " My will is more powerful than yours." A child who is being used as an object of addiction is expected to be compliant (surrender information) and fears for their safety when they do not submit to an unauthorized invasion (a violation of their boundaries).

Lack of privacy includes excessive probing, the physical act of entering someone else's room or bath area, .i.staring; (as an invasion or as a way to invade), or looking through someone else's personal effects, all without permission. All of these activities are an invasion and the act of invasion without permission is again a "boundary violation."

Addicts do not respect boundaries. They have an intuitive sense of what a boundary violation is but choose to ignore that information. As an addict, the choice for them is choosing between the addiction to the child and the child's physical or emotional safeness or wellness (safeness or wellness as felt by the child). Unfortunately, satisfying the addiction is stronger and subsequently more important than the concern or well being of the child. The child's welfare is thought of in terms of how to feed the addiction and satisfy the compulsion. The crime with addiction is that it is usually a silent attack i.e. feeding the addiction behind closed car doors, closed bedroom doors, or basements and then trying to look excessively good to the outside community by repressing, concealing, or controlling anything that might "look bad" or unacceptable. An addict parent is basically addicted to controlling, either in the form of controlling themselves (their behaviors and their feelings), and/ or controlling other people in the same way. And controlling information or personal space empowers the addict with feelings of control. Controlling is a way addict parents "feel better."

Lack of privacy may also be "taking an inventory" of the child. It's an intrusion and a boundary violation. Taking an inventory of someone means to take an accounting of their behavior and reading it back to them or analyzing them aloud. A child, who's inventory is being taken, will feel like someone has just invaded their mind, stolen information, and then exposed it to the world like spoils of war. It's an attack and pilfering of the child's mind and spirit. Some mild examples of inventory taking would be statements like:

• "I know you're going to like this."
• "Mommy knows you won't like this, so you can't have it."
• "I knew you would do this."
• "You don't like that. I remember the last time you . . . . ."

Some more serious examples of inventory taking would be:

(said from an angry or envious victimstance)

• "You're just stubborn/ lazy/ shy/ excited/ small/ slow/ etc." (Labels that judge negatively).
• "I (or You) know you're only doing this to . . . . . . . . "
• "I know what your thinking (something) and it's wrong."
• "You're not fooling me, I know exactly what you're up to."
• "You're pretty/ talented/ good/ easy/ nice/ quick/ smart/etc." (Labels that create expectation).

These kinds of statements, that presume to know something personal about the child, more than the child would know about themselves, are considered to be an inventory taking which is a boundary violation; more specifically, the addict foregoes any question that would ask in a nurturing way for "permission" to obtain information in order to affirm or verify their perceptions of the child at the time.

---

Projection

Projection is a way addict parents unloads themselves emotionally onto the child by shifting the responsibility for their feelings onto the child. The shifting of responsibility for their feelings onto the child is also called "blaming." Blaming the child for the addict's feelings. The addict forces (blames) the child into excepting responsibility for their feelings. The forcing of responsibility is a boundary violation. It's a type of invasion which forces the child to except extra emotional and physiological loads.

Imagine the child to be a country. Let's call this country "Child Country."

Imagine the addict to be a country and let's call this country "Addict Country."

Each country has borders, or boundaries, which surround the country and keep it safe.

Imagine the neighboring country of Addict Country forcing the burden of their internal affairs onto Child Country. As an example, say that Addict Country has a sudden increase in population. Let's call this sudden increase in population a population explosion. The population explosion is so big that Addict Country is unable to cope with the sudden expansion. In order to relieve this sudden internal growth, they feel it necessary to expand outward. Unfortunately they don't have the land resources within their own country to accommodate the expansion. The only way to resolve the burden of this sudden growth is to invade a neighboring country. They will choose to invade the nearest neighboring country with the weakest borders. The nearest country with the weakest borders is Child Country.

Addict Country's ability to invade Child country is more powerful than Child Country's ability to protect it's borders. The invasion of Child Country is called a boundary violation (the boundaries, or borders, of Child Country have been invaded).

Using the same story, but replacing the elements in motion with human attributes, we get the following:

• Country Story - Human Equivalent.
• Child Country - The child.
• Addict Country - The addict.
• Borders (boundaries) - The personal protective space.
• Population explosion - The addict's overflow of internal feelings.
• The expansion - The load of emotion.
• Expanding outward - Projecting feelings.
• Land resources - Coping skills for feelings.
• The ability to invade - Strength, experience, size, skill.

We now have the human equivalent to the country story. The result would be the following human story.

The addict has a sudden increase in feelings. Unable to cope with the load of these feelings, they project these feelings onto the child. The child's personal protective space is invaded and emotionally (and physiologically) loaded down with the addict's feelings. Due to this invasion of the child's personal protective space, a boundary violation has occurred.

Below are some examples of projection. The first statement is the projection. The projection is what the child hears. The statements that follow are the addicts concealed feelings (ACF), which the child does not hear. As a result of not hearing these concealed feelings, the child is loaded down emotionally with loads (assumes the loads) that the child assumes that they are supposed to carry (accommodate or make adjustments) for the addict.

---

Examples of Projection

Projection: "You're Stupid."

ACF:

• "I'm frustrated with the limits I think you have."
• "I'm angry that the expectations I have of you aren't being met."
• "I feel like you aren't meeting my needs."
• "I feel helpless."

Projection: "You're Selfish."

ACF:

• "I feel less important than you and I think it's you're fault.."
• "I feel like you should discard you're feelings in favor of mine."
• "I feel like you aren't meeting my needs."
• "I feel helpless and unloved when you take care of yourself."

Projection: "You're Crazy."

ACF:

• "I'm unable to accept you and your feelings."
• "I feel angry or threatened by what I am hearing."
• "I feel inadequate."
• "I feel helpless."

Projection: "You're just lazy."

ACF:

• "I have expectations for myself and I think you should be able to meet those same expectations."
• "I can't cope with your limits, no matter how healthy they are."
• "I feel helpless."

Projection: "You're a bitch /an asshole."

ACF:

• "I expect you to behave in a certain way."
• "I feel helpless, inadequate, angry, hurt, etc. that you're not behaving in a way that I feel good about."
• "I feel like you aren't meeting my needs."
• "I feel like I need you to take care of me and my needs."

Projection: "Grow up!"

ACF:

• "I expect you to behave in a certain way." ;
• "I feel helpless, inadequate, angry, hurt, etc. that you're not behaving in a way that I feel good about."
• "I feel like you aren't meeting my needs."
• "I feel like I need you to take care of me and my needs."

Projection: "You're a big baby!"

ACF:

• "I expect you to behave in a certain way." ;
• "I feel helpless, inadequate, angry, hurt, etc. that you're not behaving in a way that I feel good about."
• "I feel like you aren't meeting my needs."
• "I feel like I need you to take care of me and my needs."

Projection: "You're a snob."

ACF:

• "I feel inadequate when I chose to be around you." ;
• "I feel helpless, inadequate, angry, hurt, etc. that you're not behaving in a way that I feel good about."
• "I feel like you aren't meeting my needs."
• "I feel like I need you to take care of me and my needs."

---

Projection: "You're just weird."

ACF:

• "I feel unable to accept you.."
• "I expect you to behave in a certain way."
• "I feel helpless, inadequate, angry, hurt, etc. that you're not behaving in a way that I feel good about."
• "I feel like you aren't meeting my needs."
• "I feel like I need you to take care of me and my needs."

Projection: "You're just thinking of yourself."

ACF:

• "I think you should abandon your needs in favor of mine." ;
• "I feel angry that I can't use you."
• "I feel like you aren't meeting my needs."
• "I feel helpless."

Projection: "Nobody is going to like you if you do that."

ACF:

• "I'm frustrated with you, I don't like what you're doing." ;
• "I expect you to behave in a certain way."
• "I feel helpless, inadequate, angry, hurt, etc. that you're not behaving in a way that I feel good about."
• "I feel like you aren't meeting my needs."
• "I feel like I need you to take care of me and my needs."

Projection: "You can't do that!"

ACF:

• "I feel anger when I think you are going to do something that I consider to be inappropriate." ;
• "I expect you to behave in a certain way."
• "I feel helpless, inadequate, angry, hurt, etc. that you're not behaving in a way that I feel good about."
• "I feel like you aren't meeting my needs."
• "I feel like I need you to take care of me and my needs."

Projection: "You're just doing that to be a smart ass."

ACF:

• "I'm sure that I can read your mind." ;
• "I'm unable to cope with your behavior."
• "I expect you to behave in a certain way."
• "I feel helpless, inadequate, angry, hurt, etc. that you're not behaving in a way that I feel good about."
• "I feel like you aren't meeting my needs."
• "I feel like I need you to take care of me and my needs."

Projection: "I think you're doing this just because . . . . . ."

ACF:

• "I'm sure that I can read your mind." ;
• "I'm unable to cope with your behavior."
• "I expect you to behave in a certain way."
• "I feel helpless, inadequate, angry, hurt, etc. that you're not behaving in a way that I feel good about."
• "I feel like you aren't meeting my needs."
• "I feel like I need you to take care of me and my needs."

Projection: "You're just doing this to get attention."

ACF:

• "I'm envious of your abilities and feeling inadequate with my own." ;
• "I'm sure that I can read your mind."
• "I'm unable to cope with your behavior."
• "I expect you to behave in a certain way."
• "I feel helpless, inadequate, angry, hurt, etc. that you're not behaving in a way that I feel good about."
• "I feel like you aren't meeting my needs."
• "I feel like I need you to take care of me and my needs."

Projection: "You are embarrassing me!"

ACF:

• "I feel anger when I think you are going to do something that I consider to be inappropriate." ;
• "I expect you to behave in a certain way."
• "I feel helpless, inadequate, angry, hurt, etc. that you're not behaving in a way that I feel good about."
• "I feel like you aren't meeting my needs."
• "I feel like I need you to take care of me and my needs."

next: A Place to Start Healing
~ all Art of Healing articles
~ addictions library articles
~ all addictions articles

A resource guide for adult children of dysfunctional families.

by:
Clinton Clark
To:
Tyler and Lindsay, I'm sorry for terrorizing you and behaving as a victim (shaming you)

I'm not OK,
when . . .
You're not.

I wrote this guide for myself. It's my hope that by sharing these recovery notes with someone else (as part of my twelfth step), they might find comfort and hope.

Here's what this guide has to offer:

• The Art of Healing, Preface
• Foreword
• Behaviors that Hurt and the Loads to be Carried
• A Place to Start Healing
• A Closer Look
• Stormy Weather Ahead
• Section III: Acceptance of Myself
• Back to Basics: Male and Female
• About Me, Clinton Clark

next: The Art of Healing, Preface
~ addictions library articles
~ all addictions articles