A brief response to Roger and Elizabeth: I do agree that these labels can be unhelpful and imprisoning and often say more about the family/social environment than about the individual (in this sense, Laing & Cooper remain relevant in their discussion of schizophrenia, even if I would not agree with their broader conclusions about the family). As somebody who has been labelled "mad" and "abusive" and all kinds of other words for evil, particularly when I broke with progressive doctrines and spoke to people who had already been shunned, I am extremely sensitive to both labels and social ostracism. I am fully aware of the way "difficult" women in particular are labelled and always have been (in different ways). I have every sympathy for people who do not know how to behave well, because I am that person and in order not to be that person, I have to daily engage in all kinds of structures and restrictions and programmes. I agree with Elizabeth that "Enduring beauty is in moderation and wisdom, in having enough to eat, in prayer and reverence." It can, however, take some people an enormously long time to get there, and some people will never get there. I don't want difficult people to be shunned.
My attempt here - knowing that it would be unpopular - is to take up Walt's feeling that he is better-placed to handle someone who behaves in maladaptive ways than other people. In my experience, it is the case that some men can handle very difficult women, and they get something positive out of it. This seems to me to be a win-win situation, and also better for those people who suffer negatively when confronted by chaotic people, insofar as they are protected from them because there's someone who can handle them in between.
I also know of one woman who received a BPD diagnosis very early in her life for whom it was very helpful. She had years of DBT and group therapy and has since flourished in intellectual circles. The current implicit metaphysics of our age has put aside demon possession and replaced it with a therapeutic worldview, no doubt. I have seen how people who want to demonise me struggle to decide whether I am sick, mad, or evil. The same trilemma occurs whenever we think about addiction or antisocial behaviour, and we have not made up our collective mind. My over-riding feeling is one of love and sympathy for suffering, and that includes people who are hurt by others, those who hurt and those who denounce.
The Fast Life is exciting and beautiful and ought to be romanticized because people have different risk appetites and time preferences and for some people the tradeoffs are worth it.
We also live in an increasingly unstable ecology, which means the r-selected approach increasingly has a competitive advantage compared to our past of factory and agricultural work. I make a lot of money and became an eceleb fairly easily for basically the same reasons that I have very few long term friendships and a bad credit score and a triple digit bodycount.
I very genuinely have zero desire to be some faggot Nebraskan farmer who dies in his eighties. I enjoy novelty and thrive in conflict. I want to circumnavigate Africa even if there's a huge chance I don't come home. I long to create compelling art and humiliate my enemies and make love to beautiful women, and I don't care if those women are strippers and alcoholics or even Jewish.
Anyone who says this impulse makes me a bad person can frankly lick my ass.
You can be really promiscuous and sleep with a lot of women without romanticizing personality disorders. Doing the former doesn't require you to do the latter.
Thanks for your reply, Nina. I should say that I hadn't discerned any kind of lack of sympathy or understanding in what you had written. I think I react quite strongly whenever the subject of such diagnoses comes up because it pained me to see how much it hurt someone I was close to, and even though she is no longer in my life, I feel protective towards her.
I'm glad to read that you know someone who felt some benefit from the diagnosis. I think the manner in which professionals applying the label relate to those diagnosed, and the way they explain what the diagnoses mean, is probably very significant in terms of whether the diagnosis feels helpful or imprisoning.
That said, I do think the terminology of the diagnosis, and that way of referring to the presenting difficulties and their causes, should be dispensed with and replaced so as to better refer to the impact of the family/social environment, past and present, as you say.
Really? Not the letter he included at the end? Do you think he was lying when he told us he loved her? Was he lying to himself? It frankly feels very genuine to me
I don't think it's alright to hurt other people for no reason and it's why I rarely speak or write to the women in my family who have this affliction. They constantly violate boundaries. They blame and hurt their friends, lovers, spouses, children, siblings, parents and other relatives. Trying to "help" them is delusional and proceeds from unwarranted self-regard. They will only trap you into hurting others or yourself or hurting them.
I do understand the attraction such women can exert on men. Yes, the shadow, pathos, the dark side exert fascination. Yes, desperation makes for good sex. Yes, there is a kind of truth in archetypical cruelty and in addiction, we are to some extent no more than living breathing bags of swirling chemicals.
But the real life, the best life, is in the infinitely simple and humble small miracles and pleasures such as feeling the wind on your face. Boring? To the insensitive, perhaps. To those who have not yet suffered enough.
Enduring beauty is in moderation and wisdom, in having enough to eat, in prayer and reverence.
When we talk about 'personality disorders', I'd assert that we have to be very mindful of two things in particular.
The first thing is that 'personality disorders' are just labels attributed to people in an attempt to explain - or explain away - certain behavioural patterns. They don't really exist in themselves.
The second is that many people who are diagnosed with 'personality disorders' find this labelling extremely harmful to them, psychologically, emotionally and spiritually. This is basically because (a) it locates the source of problems as in an inherent, fundamental flaw in their own being; (b) because, by doing so, this diagnosis refuses to centrally recognise or address the trauma, known or unknown, which underpins the behavioural patterns which have led to the diagnosis. People don't respond to life in these ways for no reason, or because they're "just like that". It is also to be noted that 'Borderline Personality Disorder', in particular, is a label much more often attributed to distressed women.
I was closely associated with someone with such a diagnosis for many years; I can say that, in that case and in others I know of, the persons concerned have found the label of 'personality disorder' just as damaging and distressing as the trauma that have thrown them into chaos. The words they used to describe the diagnosis and its effects were often "violence" and "dehumanising". It greatly exacerbated their sense of shame. It is a dangerously irresponsible way of referring to people; it often leads to them being dismissed and misunderstood by professionals and others who can simply attribute any legitimate concern on the part of the diagnosed person to the disorder - "well, that's just what those people are like, isn't it?".
For these reasons, 'personality disorders' is one of those phrases we should insist on only using within the protective confines of quotation marks, much like 'transgender' (and perhaps 'schizophrenia'). To do otherwise is to opt in too fully to language which damages many people, and which gives things which are merely ideas an undue semblance of being real.
Non-hierarchical empathy, love and understanding are of course fine, but I feel very uneasy about any attempts to glamourise the distress experienced by people afflicted with this label. (For instance, regarding women with 'personality disorders' being good in bed - that might well depend on whether their fear-driven responses to life are based in some kind of sexual assault).
We could also discuss the extent to which the behaviours of those labelled with 'personality disorders' might actually be considered quite reasonable in the context of the traumatic events they have experienced; also, the extent to which the responses of many people considered 'normal' might be considered to be. at times, 'disordered'.
An activist and poet called Clare Shaw is one of those I have come across who has levelled a critique against the diagnosis they have been given:
Narcissistic, psychopathic, avoidant, histrionic, schizo, and codependent men ("nice guy issues") are most attracted to borderline, bipolar, and dependent women (from upbringing or fetishizing). The narcissist dating a BPD woman is even a trope. Dark triad men and vulnerable dark triad women go well together like bread and butter (toasted in hell).
"Nice guys" actually want to help troubled women, but they are the type to expect something in return. Emotionally unstable women are attracted to both the arrogant narcissist and the insecure codependent guy just the same.
Dark triad people aren't at peace if there is peace. There must be drama, addiction, and possibly some kind of abuse.
This particular situation definitely smells of histrionics, narcissism, and a BPD cocktail.
A brief response to Roger and Elizabeth: I do agree that these labels can be unhelpful and imprisoning and often say more about the family/social environment than about the individual (in this sense, Laing & Cooper remain relevant in their discussion of schizophrenia, even if I would not agree with their broader conclusions about the family). As somebody who has been labelled "mad" and "abusive" and all kinds of other words for evil, particularly when I broke with progressive doctrines and spoke to people who had already been shunned, I am extremely sensitive to both labels and social ostracism. I am fully aware of the way "difficult" women in particular are labelled and always have been (in different ways). I have every sympathy for people who do not know how to behave well, because I am that person and in order not to be that person, I have to daily engage in all kinds of structures and restrictions and programmes. I agree with Elizabeth that "Enduring beauty is in moderation and wisdom, in having enough to eat, in prayer and reverence." It can, however, take some people an enormously long time to get there, and some people will never get there. I don't want difficult people to be shunned.
My attempt here - knowing that it would be unpopular - is to take up Walt's feeling that he is better-placed to handle someone who behaves in maladaptive ways than other people. In my experience, it is the case that some men can handle very difficult women, and they get something positive out of it. This seems to me to be a win-win situation, and also better for those people who suffer negatively when confronted by chaotic people, insofar as they are protected from them because there's someone who can handle them in between.
I also know of one woman who received a BPD diagnosis very early in her life for whom it was very helpful. She had years of DBT and group therapy and has since flourished in intellectual circles. The current implicit metaphysics of our age has put aside demon possession and replaced it with a therapeutic worldview, no doubt. I have seen how people who want to demonise me struggle to decide whether I am sick, mad, or evil. The same trilemma occurs whenever we think about addiction or antisocial behaviour, and we have not made up our collective mind. My over-riding feeling is one of love and sympathy for suffering, and that includes people who are hurt by others, those who hurt and those who denounce.
Romanticizing dysfunction is bad, actually.
This is such a gay and repulsive attitude.
The Fast Life is exciting and beautiful and ought to be romanticized because people have different risk appetites and time preferences and for some people the tradeoffs are worth it.
We also live in an increasingly unstable ecology, which means the r-selected approach increasingly has a competitive advantage compared to our past of factory and agricultural work. I make a lot of money and became an eceleb fairly easily for basically the same reasons that I have very few long term friendships and a bad credit score and a triple digit bodycount.
I very genuinely have zero desire to be some faggot Nebraskan farmer who dies in his eighties. I enjoy novelty and thrive in conflict. I want to circumnavigate Africa even if there's a huge chance I don't come home. I long to create compelling art and humiliate my enemies and make love to beautiful women, and I don't care if those women are strippers and alcoholics or even Jewish.
Anyone who says this impulse makes me a bad person can frankly lick my ass.
You can be really promiscuous and sleep with a lot of women without romanticizing personality disorders. Doing the former doesn't require you to do the latter.
rather we shouldn't "psychiatrise" romantic behavior
Correct.
Don’t just take this dude’s word for it. Take a Harvard psychiatrist’s take on more or less the same matter.
https://youtu.be/BHf0L8dZJbE?si=ci3kdE8rFgMcEJHd
Intense desire makes us feel alive
Thanks for your reply, Nina. I should say that I hadn't discerned any kind of lack of sympathy or understanding in what you had written. I think I react quite strongly whenever the subject of such diagnoses comes up because it pained me to see how much it hurt someone I was close to, and even though she is no longer in my life, I feel protective towards her.
I'm glad to read that you know someone who felt some benefit from the diagnosis. I think the manner in which professionals applying the label relate to those diagnosed, and the way they explain what the diagnoses mean, is probably very significant in terms of whether the diagnosis feels helpful or imprisoning.
That said, I do think the terminology of the diagnosis, and that way of referring to the presenting difficulties and their causes, should be dispensed with and replaced so as to better refer to the impact of the family/social environment, past and present, as you say.
“It is better, however, that some men are capable of loving women like this. “
With due respect, nothing in what Walt wrote makes me think he loves Rebecca.
Really? Not the letter he included at the end? Do you think he was lying when he told us he loved her? Was he lying to himself? It frankly feels very genuine to me
I don’t think he has the maturity to love anyone but himself, frankly. But you probably know him better than I ever will.
I don't think it's alright to hurt other people for no reason and it's why I rarely speak or write to the women in my family who have this affliction. They constantly violate boundaries. They blame and hurt their friends, lovers, spouses, children, siblings, parents and other relatives. Trying to "help" them is delusional and proceeds from unwarranted self-regard. They will only trap you into hurting others or yourself or hurting them.
I do understand the attraction such women can exert on men. Yes, the shadow, pathos, the dark side exert fascination. Yes, desperation makes for good sex. Yes, there is a kind of truth in archetypical cruelty and in addiction, we are to some extent no more than living breathing bags of swirling chemicals.
But the real life, the best life, is in the infinitely simple and humble small miracles and pleasures such as feeling the wind on your face. Boring? To the insensitive, perhaps. To those who have not yet suffered enough.
Enduring beauty is in moderation and wisdom, in having enough to eat, in prayer and reverence.
Hi Elizabeth, my response is above. I couldn't put it under your comment for some reason.
When we talk about 'personality disorders', I'd assert that we have to be very mindful of two things in particular.
The first thing is that 'personality disorders' are just labels attributed to people in an attempt to explain - or explain away - certain behavioural patterns. They don't really exist in themselves.
The second is that many people who are diagnosed with 'personality disorders' find this labelling extremely harmful to them, psychologically, emotionally and spiritually. This is basically because (a) it locates the source of problems as in an inherent, fundamental flaw in their own being; (b) because, by doing so, this diagnosis refuses to centrally recognise or address the trauma, known or unknown, which underpins the behavioural patterns which have led to the diagnosis. People don't respond to life in these ways for no reason, or because they're "just like that". It is also to be noted that 'Borderline Personality Disorder', in particular, is a label much more often attributed to distressed women.
I was closely associated with someone with such a diagnosis for many years; I can say that, in that case and in others I know of, the persons concerned have found the label of 'personality disorder' just as damaging and distressing as the trauma that have thrown them into chaos. The words they used to describe the diagnosis and its effects were often "violence" and "dehumanising". It greatly exacerbated their sense of shame. It is a dangerously irresponsible way of referring to people; it often leads to them being dismissed and misunderstood by professionals and others who can simply attribute any legitimate concern on the part of the diagnosed person to the disorder - "well, that's just what those people are like, isn't it?".
For these reasons, 'personality disorders' is one of those phrases we should insist on only using within the protective confines of quotation marks, much like 'transgender' (and perhaps 'schizophrenia'). To do otherwise is to opt in too fully to language which damages many people, and which gives things which are merely ideas an undue semblance of being real.
Non-hierarchical empathy, love and understanding are of course fine, but I feel very uneasy about any attempts to glamourise the distress experienced by people afflicted with this label. (For instance, regarding women with 'personality disorders' being good in bed - that might well depend on whether their fear-driven responses to life are based in some kind of sexual assault).
We could also discuss the extent to which the behaviours of those labelled with 'personality disorders' might actually be considered quite reasonable in the context of the traumatic events they have experienced; also, the extent to which the responses of many people considered 'normal' might be considered to be. at times, 'disordered'.
An activist and poet called Clare Shaw is one of those I have come across who has levelled a critique against the diagnosis they have been given:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/247749672_I_Women_at_the_Margins_A_Critique_of_the_Diagnosis_of_Borderline_Personality_Disorder;
https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/161808/other-than-personality-disorder-what-term-could-you-use-to-describe-these-people
I would always much rather hear about 'personality disorders' from those who have to endure the label, and from those seeking to deconstruct it.
Hi Roger, my response is above. I couldn't put it under your comment for some reason.
Narcissistic, psychopathic, avoidant, histrionic, schizo, and codependent men ("nice guy issues") are most attracted to borderline, bipolar, and dependent women (from upbringing or fetishizing). The narcissist dating a BPD woman is even a trope. Dark triad men and vulnerable dark triad women go well together like bread and butter (toasted in hell).
"Nice guys" actually want to help troubled women, but they are the type to expect something in return. Emotionally unstable women are attracted to both the arrogant narcissist and the insecure codependent guy just the same.
Dark triad people aren't at peace if there is peace. There must be drama, addiction, and possibly some kind of abuse.
This particular situation definitely smells of histrionics, narcissism, and a BPD cocktail.
are we calling psychopaths nice guys now?
Man, you just got infactuated with a crazy woman. Now you are just rationalizing it and pretending you figured out some great cosmic secret.
We get it. it will pass.