When Others Don't Like The 'P' Word

by Sandra L. Brown, M.A.

I was recently asked to be on a national TV show to discuss the issue of psychopathy in relationships based on my book 'Women Who Love Psychopaths.' They had looked at the website, read information about the book, discussed what the rest of the show was going to be about, and booked me for the show. They didn't invite me based on my other book (although equally as informational) How to Spot a Dangerous Man, they booked me to discuss and showed the book cover of, Women Who Love Psychopaths.

However, 20 minutes before going on air a producer told me 'they' (whoever that is in TV world) was uncomfortable using the 'p' word--psychopath. They found the word to be 'controversial' and 'sensationalistic' and that my example of probably well known public psychopaths who are not recognized as psychopathic was too debatable and unproveable to discuss.

This was of course sad for me to hear since so much of what The Institute attempts to provide is public pathology education. Truly the only way for people to avoid psychopathy is to develop the ability to understand the traits and learn to spot it in others. All which is why our goal for this agency is public education. This is of course, not our first time to hear that the 'p' word is offensive, debatable, controversial, or judgmental, and it will not be the last time, unfortunately.

Several victims of incredible psychopathic abuse were also on the show and I was asked to comment on their cases but also asked to not use the 'p' word. I asked the producer what she thought those perpetrator's behaviors should be called, or what disorders would motivate their behavior....or what was she suggesting I 'should' call them? I told her I was at a loss to pick another label or motivation behind their lethal behaviors that would come close to helping others understand 'who does that?'. I told her that psychopathy was a diagnosis, not merely a political argument, a theoretical ideology, or even a criminal judgment of character. I was confused as to why I was there when what I do, what I write about, who I help, and who I help convict are overtly obvious from my professional background and from our website.

I was reminded again when I heard 'the p word' is controversial, that public pathology education is still in it's infancy. I know that victims face this all the time when they struggle to figure out what is wrong with the pathological person, only to discover the shocking revelation of the person's disorder. But the victim trying to teach others what is wrong with the pathological is counteracted when others find the information to be disputable, distasteful, unproveable, unlikely, and un-spiritual to even suggest.

The 'p' word is now viewed as the new psychological slur of the 21st century. It's correlated with the devastating racial slurs of the 1950's, the cultural slurs of the 60's-70's, and the gay/lesbian slurs of the 80's-90's. Now, we face the 'p' word the way we faced the 'n' of the 50's and the 'f' or the 60'70's and the 'q' of the 80-90s. But with a huge difference! There is nothing wrong with the 'p' word the way it was intensely wrong with the 'n,' 'f,' and 'q' words of decades gone by.

But it is treated as if we are being racially insensitive, culturally inappropriate, or gender ignorant. We are looked at as the skin-heads of the Diagnostic Statistical Manual that we would 'dare' to 'call someone' a psychopath. We are viewed as the rock throwers at the psychologically-disabled
people with pathology, the Bible thumpers of the poor spiritually disenfranchised psychopath, and the socially clueless that we would spew a power-packing psychological label like 'psychopathy' around that might actually strike and land on a human being.

I know, I know....afterall, it's daytime TV which we all recognize is about ratings and keeping pace with society's Attention-Deficit-Disordered need for topics to be covered in three minutes no matter how riveting the storyline is. Daytime TV covers tsunamis of natural science as well as the tsunamis of psychological trauma in the same fast fall swoop of selling hair dye and lipstick in the same 30 minute segment. What did I expect afterall?

...Well, I always hope that a victim's trauma is recognized and embraced for the emotional and spiritual strength it took to not only survive, but to show up on that TV stage to tell their story to help others. ...Well, I always hope that the need to teach others 'how to spot' the devastating disorders that created the victims trauma is the guiding motivation behind why TV shows exist and supercedes the mere 'storyline-as-business' of TV.

Yes, I recognize that daytime TV is not the spokes person for the planet--that there ARE those who really want to hear more of the victims story and learn more about 'how to spot' them in their own lives....but I have to tell you, it IS a 'cold-water-splash-in-the-face', like a 'wake-up-Sandra-we-aren't-as-far-as-you-think' call that we are whispering the 'p' word behind stage and off camera and are 'editing it out' for public viewing. The whole segment of discussion about low empathy, no conscience and "who does that" was removed. Not one word that explained the behavior of those lethal people was 'leaked' to the viewing audience for public pathology education. We still have miles and miles to go in educating the public that psychopathy is a disorder not a verbal tyriad.

You know what....as offensive, debatable, controversial, judgmental, OR .... as disputable, distasteful, unproveable, unlikely and un-spiritual as it felt to those merely producing a nano-second based TV show to say the 'p' word, the victims who have lived with the 'p' are the true authorities here. They would probably beg to disagree with the nay-sayers that the 'p' is a profound psychological slur. I am sure the victims found the 'p's behavior to be more offensive than TV-land will ever understand. The victims surely wrestled with their own need to over come the 'debatable-ness' of the disorder, or the controversy that swirled around the lethal behaviors of the psychopath and I am sure the victim's incured their own judgmental views of outsiders. I doubt today the victim's find their story to be un proveable or even disputable ---after all, some of these storys ended up in murder or attempted more. All adjectives that are associated with psychopathy.

As 'controversial' as TV-land felt the 'p' word was, does not even compare to the victim's overwhelming need to shout from the roof-tops what the pathological IS....a psychopath.

Using the 'p' word of psychopathy is not a slur. It is a education, a prevention, a DIAGNOSIS, and the reality for millions of victims in the world.

Sandra L. Brown, M.A. is the Founder and CEO of The Institute for Relational Harm Reduction and Public Pathology Education.  She is the author of several best selling books, including How to Spot a Dangerous Man and Why Women Love Psychopaths. www.saferelationshipsmagazine.com

Related articles

• Mutual Pathology: Gasoline and Fire (timesupblog.blogspot.com)
• Doc Bonn Explains: The Difference Between a Sociopath and a Psychopath (docbonn.wordpress.com)
• The psychopath: Facts and research resources (drjezphillips.wordpress.com)
• Psychopaths Everywhere? (psychologytoday.com)
• Who Does That? Part 2 (saferelationshipsmagazine.com)
• Genetic and Neuro-Physiological Basis for Hyper-Empathy (saferelationshipsmagazine.com)

Hot Dog, It’s Healin’ Time

By Heidi Hiatt

We all wear masks, and the time comes when we cannot remove them
without removing some of our own skin. -André Berthiaume

Martha Stout, author of The Sociopath Next Door, said, “The most universal behavior of unscrupulous people is not directed, as one might imagine, at our fearfulness. It is, perversely, an appeal to our sympathy.”

I find it very disturbing when people fall for this mind game, a trap that low to no conscience types and their defenders instinctively set when cornered. Finding themselves in the hot seat, they divert onlookers’ attention from their misdeeds to all other possible causes of their behavior, including how society, their parents, their education, and their uncle’s former college roommate’s cousin’s deranged hedge trimmer-wielding hamster all have responsibility for their “mistakes”. Heaven forbid they should have to take responsibility for their own choices.

When Congressmen Anthony Weiner’s resignation speech was broadcast live on the radio this week, I couldn’t help but slip into psychology mode and analyze the content. The speech began with a recap of “what the people wanted” and how he became a Congressman because of their will. It came across as “remember, happy campers, you want me. Resignation isn’t what you want. Everything I do, I do it for you.”

Then, as he spoke over hecklers who exhibited the maturity of a seventh grade locker room, he embarked on a progression of pseudo-apologies that peaked with a statement I found curiously similar to the “apologies” serial killers give in court. The congressman said something to the effect of, “most importantly, I need to take time out for myself, so I can heal.”

Um… dude. Really? That’s all you’ve got? That’s the pinnacle of a weird attempt at remorse? Where’s the apology for lying, or to any victims, or to your wife, or…? You’re the most important person, the most harmed individual in this? Wow. That’s pathetic. Sounds like the greatest love… of all… was happening to you… (Whitney Houston voice). It’s clear that he was looking out for number one.

I really didn’t care about what Congressman Weiner was doing until I heard a teenager might be involved and then learned he lied about it. Sometimes we just have to admit we’re wrong and do better. According to his initial public statements, though, it sounded like those tighty whities photos just magically teleported themselves to the cell phones of random female fans. It was one of those “I’m sorry, do you think your 300 million fellow Americans are stupid?” moments.

Weiner’s attempted Jedi mind tricks were hopelessly ineffective and transparent. I don’t know enough about him to speculate about his inner condition, but can say that his recent laments sound narcissistic. Many saw through the spins being put on his ethical logjam, but I’m concerned that a case much closer to home is not being seen as objectively.

Yesterday serial burglar, thief, vandal, firearms law violator, fire starter, et cetera Colton Harris-Moore pled guilty to a handful of charges in federal court. He will be sentenced October 28th. The media is reporting that he may serve up to 6½ years in prison, and that he has to “forfeit” or “give up” the profits that will result from his exploits (movie deal, books, and so on). One news site reported that Harris-Moore and his attorneys had a hearty chuckle when the federal prosecutor forgot to mention the theft of a TV dinner (oh, pssht, no biggie even though he had to break into someone’s house to get it, right?).

Note the terminology being used widely in the Seattle area media: he is going to “forfeit” the profits. He has to “give up” the money he could otherwise be making off of his crime spree. This “forfeiting” means he is paying “restitution” to the victims. His attorney says there will be enough money to “pay back” the people he terrorized and stole from (keeping in mind his crimes went far beyond the million dollar mark).

Just as I said, “huh?” as Anthony Weiner “apologized,” now I’m saying, “this is restitution?” How do you “give up” something you don’t have? If you’re “forfeiting” profits, doesn’t that imply that you are foregoing the acquisition or retention of money that belongs to you? I realize that without this stipulation, Harris-Moore could keep the money he’s made off of the victimization of other human beings.

My point is that he’s not earning it, or working for it, or making an effort to pay the victims back himself. He’s “paying them back” by taking advantage of them in the first place. While I applaud the U.S. Attorney’s office for ensuring that this condition be part of the plea deal, it should not be labeled true restitution. Restitution would be breaking rocks in the hot sun, since he fought the law, and the law won. In other words, he should have to do something other than sit back and let the money roll in.

This reminded me of when Harris-Moore “gave” the animal shelter in Raymond $100 while on the lam. Fans cheered his thoughtful act of charity, but others of us thought it unlikely that he had $100 to give; he was probably donating stolen money. At the time I said I hoped his fans would inundate animal shelters with money if they were so happy about it (it would be nice to see some genuine good come out of the followers’ frenzy).

Another strange and murky aspect of the Harris-Moore case that lingers like the stench of a refried beans eating contest in an airtight tour bus is the optimism over his upcoming “rehabilitation.” I don’t know if any psychological evaluations have been conducted since he’s been in custody or who has conducted them. Even if there has been an appropriate assessment of his internal state, the public may not be privy to it (though they should be).

Douglas Adams once said that the most misleading assumptions we make are the ones we don’t even know we’re making, and there is a widespread assumption that because of Harris-Moore’s age and intelligence, he will be rehabilitated. I want to post a billboard-sized neon caution sign with flashing red lights on it right here: we don’t know that. We should not assume that. From what we know through the media’s coverage of Harris-Moore’s crimes, even without seeing the official police and prosecutor’s reports, there is evidence of an almost lifelong pattern of antisocial behavior that’s escalated over time.

People with low to no empathy and remorse, in many cases, are not rehabilitated. Some experts will argue that they can’t be or that the only way to effect any change is to have them engage in a cost-benefit analysis of how their behavior affects themselves. When they are finally convicted of a criminal offense (many are not), they spend their time in prison studying, networking, researching, and impressing everyone with their “model prisoner” status. The parole boards love them and some only serve part of their sentence.

This is how swindlers, rapists, murderers, burglars, and other convicts weasel their way out from behind bars to return to their hunting grounds and strike again. Similar to how some who perpetrate domestic violence get to go to “treatment” to hone their abusing skills, then come out of treatment more deceptive and stealthy than ever, some antisocials, sociopaths, and psychopaths leave prison as “success stories” when in actuality they’re better equipped than ever to victimize others.

Harris-Moore has so many fans, and such an emphasis has been placed on the terrible circumstances of his childhood, youth, and intellect, that some people think he’s going to turn it all around and use his “superpowers” for good. I would remind them that for every Superman, there’s a Lex Luthor. Some use their gifts selflessly, some selfishly.

It is rare that someone entrenched in the wasteland of vanity and megalomania sheds their scales for a cloak of righteousness. They can appear to; those are the scariest kind of people, the ones who appear charitable and moral while pillaging the lives of others for their own ends. As the Good Book says, Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light.

Do I want Harris-Moore to spend his time in prison productively and become a better person? Of course; that’s what we hope incarceration does for people. I can’t limit God’s grace or be certain of the outcome of this mess. Through the lens of forensic psychology, however, I see a lot of red flags that indicate a low potential for genuine change and a number of reasons to be concerned about this guy’s future impact on society.

When people say, “he hasn’t killed anyone,” I want to sit them down and point out that this is how such criminals develop. Besides that, he could have already killed someone—he started a fire in a home in front of a small child, may have fired at police officers, illegally flew planes he didn’t know how to land, and broke into homes.

He also stole an assault rifle from a deputy’s car, was frequently armed, and even fired a gun when apprehended. He seemed paranoid, telling witnesses before his arrest, “they’re going to kill me.” Let’s not forget the time he bailed out of his neighbor’s stolen Mercedes after aiming it towards a large propane tank when deputies were pursuing him.

That childhood people are quick to use as an excuse for his behavior is the same set of circumstances that research is now showing to be a huge contributing factor to antisocial behavior and psychopathy. Some researchers theorize that child neglect or abuse could actually be the “on” switch that activates the sociopathic personality (with the caveat that many sociopaths also have normal childhoods).

Personally I believe that no matter what biological, environmental, or other factors you’re dealing with, you still have a choice as to how you treat others. It is interesting, once you start delving into the excuses people make for someone else’s behavior, how the very factors they believe should exonerate the subject may be the exact things that make them so dangerous.

Logically, the more we believe that elements other than a suspect’s free will influence their victimization of others, the more we should be trying to protect society from them. If they’re not in the driver’s seat, then we need to keep them off of the road and stop sending them back for remedial driver’s ed.

Harris-Moore has yet to face the courts in Island and San Juan County. He may well be sentenced to more time, yet I won’t be surprised if he’s allowed to serve his sentences concurrently. I hope not; he is a danger to society and needs to be punished for his flamboyant, repetitive patterns of evil behavior. While I can’t diagnose him from a distance, I want to be on record as warning the public that all that glitters is not gold, and that “forfeiting” profits from crime is not an indicator of real remorse.

Pleading guilty yesterday was in his best interest. It avoids the risks and costs of a federal trial and he knew he had to pay the piper at least a little. I’m bothered that he probably won’t spend more than a few years in prison (6½? I’d be shocked) and that his mother can still profit from the domestic terrorism spree she helped fuel. I hope that Randy Gaylord and Greg Banks, for the sake of the public they serve, are not merciful and prosecute Harris-Moore to the fullest extent of the law.

Additionally, I want to address the significant number of people who call speaking out against Harris-Moore’s behavior “hatred.” I saw this accusation of “hating” resurface on newspaper discussion boards yesterday. Condemning criminal, dangerous, selfish, and/or antisocial behavior is not hating someone. It is hating the behavior. There is a big difference.

There are people in my life I love, but I abhor the sick and abusive things they do to others. I can hope and pray for the best for them, but I can also keep my distance and do what I can to stop their selfish behavior. My faith does not compel me to tolerate it or accommodate it. If anything, I’m called to stand up for myself and for the victims. That’s what our criminal justice system is supposed to do as well.

Returning to my rant on the self-absorbed woman in the grocery store last night, we have to stop excusing and allowing bad behavior. I can’t join the quasi-religious mysticism of the Colton Harris-Moore cult or think of him as Camano’s own Bart Simpson, just an impish cartoon character who commits endearing acts of comical mischief. No, he’s an adult who has exhibited some strange impulses and hazardous decision making. While an attitude of contrition lingers in the air, I see a smokescreen. Time will tell.

Just as recent presidents have trumpeted the infringement of civil liberties and beefing up of an inefficient government as “for the benefit of the American people,” certain people caught in lies in the news this week may be squirting the same ink. Don’t believe everything they say.

Dig deeper. Look for the spins. Analyze the words and phrases that are being used repeatedly. Think things through for yourself, and don’t let other people make up your mind for you. Ask the ancient Roman question, “qui bono?”—who benefits?

‘Cause hey, buddy, this is about you. You’re the American people. This is what works best for everyone. You wanted this, remember? This is fair. It’s all working out like it’s supposed to. The dishonest among us just need time to go heal themselves. They’re the real victims here. Just give them time, and it’ll all be okay. Right?

Right?

Heidi Hiatt is a Generation X woman who is proud to advocate for crime victims, including domestic violence survivors, people with food allergies, children’s issues, animals, personal privacy rights, government accountability, and ethical law enforcement practices. Read her blog:Truth, Justice, and All-American Allergen-Free Apple Pie Straight Talk in a Crooked World

Empowerment for the Next Generation

By Lyn Twyman 

A quote from John F. Kennedy goes "We have the power to make this the best generation of mankind in the history of the world or to make it the last ". The future of our families and our country lies in our young people. We want our children to succeed. We want our young people to outlive us and become successful in every aspect of their lives. When it comes to protecting our young people and their hearts, not just in regard to love but their entire being, they are truly fragile. Remember when you were little how you looked for approval from your mom or dad, maybe an older brother or sister, or someone that you looked up to for things like a stick figure drawing you created, a mud pie or even the first level you beat in a Nintendo game? Our young people seek our approval which makes them budding sources of energy and change but also very vulnerable to bad influences.

If we want our young people to succeed we have to plot out a path that demonstrates success. Plotting that path does not mean that we are loaded with tons of money, the first and best of electronics nor does it mean that we force them into a career just to satisfy our own desires. It simply means that we lead by example, good examples that we live by that they can follow. No matter what, we are all creatures of repetition.

Psychologists call the first 10 years of a child's life The Magic Years. That is when a child will learn and develop who he/she is and his character. Often the essence of an individual, their temperament, their drive, their motivation becomes set for the remainder of their life during The Magic Years, that crucial window of opportunity for learning, growth and development. The Magic Years for a child largely formulates from their environment. As people, we will emulate follow what we see and hear that goes on around us good or bad.

How do we help this next generation not fall prey to violence, victimization and unhealthy relationships or become abusive? What do we want to tell the next generation about empowerment? What does empowerment consist of? Empowerment consists of the same areas we talk with victims of domestic violence about when we are trying to help them rebuild their lives. These areas are self esteem, healthy relationships, mental health, physical health, finances, education, self defense and spiritual well being. These should also be the same areas we work with our young people on as well to not only keep them from becoming victims but to live well rounded lives, healthy lives. These areas are often missing by many parents, just brushed over or completely skipped to let the young person play their favorite Xbox game, spend the day at the mall with the kid from school they barely know or maybe to avoid some personal guilt. As parents and caregivers of young people, we must live and operate proactively, not reactively, and by example.

Helping to empower this next generation also means that we should educate ourselves and show our young people that we are not afraid to learn, not that we know everything. So if you lack skills in the financial area schedule sometime with your local bank representative to learn how to save an invest better. If you do not know self defense, sign up for a class that you and your young person can take together. If you come from a background where your family life was abusive, go to a family counselor or holistic therapist for a few sessions to get a better understanding of how your past affects you.

Helping to empower our young people means coming out of our shells and stepping out on a much greater plain, challenging our own selves and perhaps some of our own demons. It is not an easy path but a path worth taking if we are truly concerned about giving our young people the tools to succeed in the immediate and throughout the rest of their life. For many children, younger and older, the knowledge and wisdom you have to share in the 8 areas I previously mentioned could be life or death. There will always be children that fail but at the end of each day ask yourself these questions, "Did I lead by example? Did I do everything I could do?" Let that be your guide to see how well you are working to empower this next generation.

Disposable People

By Heidi Hiatt

Whhzzzzzzzt.

Rip.

Crumple crumple crumple.

Thunk.

Swush.

Thud.

For those who think this series of sound effects describes the use of a paper towel, you’re right. But these sound effects can also be used to illustrate the use of people.

People, women especially, seem to have become commodities in the realm of modern relationships. They are used, abused, and thrown aside like trash when the consumer becomes disenchanted with their latest acquisition.

Treating other human beings like garbage seems to have become the norm in our society. Modern dating involves test driving any number of different models for however long they are useful. Modern marriages are frequently terminated when selfishness outweighs togetherness. We live in an age of throwaway humanity.

Being treated as disposable is the only way of life some people have ever known. No matter how much of themselves they pour into a relationship, or how hard they try, it’s never enough. No amount of love, goodness, hard work, ethics, or sacrifice will satisfy some empty, endlessly ravenous people.

When a relationship requires actual commitment, effort, or consideration of the other above self, many people simply throw in the towel and move on. Standing up for their partner, or making them number one in their life, is more of a price than they are willing to pay. Especially if it means standing up to critical or controlling forces in their life.

This also happens when people stand up for themselves against abuse and mistreatment. Instead of getting help or going to therapy, many people would rather abandon their partner than face their personal demons. They often blame their partner for their own issues and angrily move on to their next train wreck.

When did it become okay to treat other human beings so casually, especially when you’ve pledged a commitment to them? Turn on nearly any television station, and you’ll see this behavior portrayed as normal. Often people on TV become intimately involved, break up, rinse, repeat, and rinse, and repeat. The cycle plays out over and over as if no one ever gets hurt and everyone’s just fine with being a temporary thrill.

Where’s the respect in that—for the other party and for oneself? In reality, this cycle can be very damaging to its participants. Besides the normal risks of pregnancy and disease, there is a psychological cost to the ongoing attachment and detachment of oneself with others.

Every time we give ourselves to another person, we seem to leave a piece of ourselves behind. We’ve given them things we can never get back. When we’re dumped for the latest shiny new toy, the grief can be devastating. We may blame ourselves even though we aren’t the guilty party.

Millions of people seem perfectly okay with mutual, continual pairing for convenience and pleasure. But then they wonder why their committed relationships and marriages don’t work out. If they’ve lived as if their partners exist for their enjoyment and gratification before commitment, do they have a fighting chance at happily ever after when they settle down?

Most people can’t change from self-centered to self-sacrificing overnight. It takes practice. Many are unwilling to even try. When the going gets rough, they just get going. On to the next one. And the next one. As if fostering an addiction, they are constantly searching for the partner who will be okay with them putting themselves first.

Ask a coworker. A relative. A friend. You will quickly find someone who has suffered the pain of being treated like a throwaway person. It’s frightening how many people can relate to this. It’s even more frightening how many of those tossed aside were conned into that initial relationship by someone claiming to want long-term commitment.

There are predators out there, people who claim to want the same things out of life that you do. But you don’t find out until much later that they aren’t serious about those things. They just said what they had to say to get what they wanted. As you got to know them, they were listening to what’s important to you, and then pretended to have the same values, or care about similar subjects.

They may stay with you for months, or even years. But in time you find that you’ve been one of several simultaneous relationships, or that they have other interests they wish to pursue. Astoundingly, sometimes these same adventure seekers want to remain “friends”, meaning they want to see other people and keep their options open with you. Or they want your emotional support and approval while they physically bond elsewhere, as if you have become their parent.

This behavior is epidemic. It is so common in our society that it seems few people are shocked by this behavior, and some even expect it. Condemning it may be considered archaic. However, this self-centered, nomadic relationship philosophy hurts a lot of good people. It destroys lives.

The victims of serial couplers are often left in a state of self-doubting shock, struggling with horrifically strong feelings of unworthiness. But they may also become desensitized to being used as an object or a means to an end. They become numb to the life-altering consequences of participating in the same narcissistic behavior. In this way the number of people engaging in shallow, egocentric liaisons multiplies like a plague.

We were never intended to be living Happy Meals, enjoyed for a limited duration and then chucked into the nearest trash can. We are meant to be in loving, lasting relationships in which we grow and learn with a devoted partner. We are supposed to be building our lives together with like-minded people, not bolstering our egos or accumulating conquests through devouring others.

Call it old-fashioned, but it is our current culture of disposable people that is largely responsible for the breakdown of the institutions of marriage and family. If we want to give our children a realistic chance at true love, stability, and a society without domestic violence, we need to stop our vampire-like coupling rituals and start setting an unselfish example. We need to be the role models our kids need.

Unless we learn from our mistakes and make a concerted effort to treat other people the way we want to be treated, this downward spiral will continue to suck in victims. It will chew them up and spit them out, bleeding and traumatized.

For those of us who believe that someday we’ll have to give an account of ourselves, how will we justify the repeated consumption of other human beings to our Creator? Can we possibly excuse this use of other people as being necessary to our own well-being? Why do we expect other human beings to fill a God-shaped hole in our hearts?

Millions of people have been the paper towel. Or the Styrofoam cup. Or the aluminum can. They know how it feels to be tossed from a moving car, roll into a ditch, and sit there on the side of the road festering under a hot sun. It’s lonely. It’s miserable. They may never be able to get back out of the ditch.

Their partners drive on, too focused on their next cold drink or snack to show any real remorse for treating another person so callously. Because in their world, it’s all about them, and what gives them maximum gratification on demand.

Let’s hope they wake up to their self-absorption before they drive off a cliff. They’ve left a wide swath of destruction in their wake and will destroy themselves as well if they keep treating precious individuals as expendable commodities.

We are all worth so much more than this.

The natural life in each of us is something self-centered, something that wants to be petted and admired, to take advantage of other lives, to exploit the whole universe. –C.S. Lewis

What's the Problem With Problem Partners?

By Sandra L. Brown



Problem partners create problems which manifest as problem relationships. These relationships are often referred to as 'bad relationships,''drama,' 'dysfunctional' even 'abusive' when in fact, often the dynamic at play is a result of what I have coined 'Pathological Love Relationships.' People wrongly assume that even abusive relationships can be 'fixed.' All abusers are not created equal. Some are permanently disordered.

These problem relationships are related to permanent personality structures and disorders.
Mislabeled, undiagnosed, or misunderstood, these relationships churn out the problems for the partners, their children, their families, and the therapists who try to help them. Behaviors associated with problem partners can include: repeat violence, chronic infidelity, addiction relapsing, unstabilized mental illness, parasitic lifestyle, abandoning the family/children, chronic use of court and lawsuits, stalking and cyber-stalking, attempted homicides.

Neuroscience has helped us understand some of the brain processes and problems involved in problem partners which have disorders referred to as the 'Erratic and Dramatic' disorders.

The partners who are challenged by faulty brain processing and negative behaviors often associated with narcissism and anti-social personality disorders and the group of no conscience disorders of sociopathy and psychopathy which make for some pretty lousy
relational material. 

This lousy relationship quality I refer to as 'Inevitable Harm' because when someone's brain processes are hard-wired and they lack the ability to sustain positive changes through therapy or develop insight about how their negative behavior hurts others--there's only one way this relationship is going to be---harmful. Even the court system now labels these relationships uniquely as 'High Conflict Cases.'

My contribution to Times Up! blog is going to look at Inevitable Harm related to partners who have problems bigger than what psychology can do for them. We help others identify if they are in PROBLEM RELATIONSHIPS.


We will look at:

* The traits of those with chronic personality problems that wreak havoc in the relationship
* Look at the unusual pathological love relationship dynamics specific to these disorders
* Take a peek at the neuroscience about what is wrong with their brain
* Learn the elevated temperament or 'super' traits of those who have gotten in relationships with this kind of disorder
* Marvel at the affected language, communication and meaning in these relationships and how it drives the other partner crazy
* Understand why these relationships feel more intense than others
* Realize why break ups are hard to do and fraught with 'Boomerang' attraction

Along the way we will review the characteristics in the disorders related to impulsivity, sexual acting out, interpersonal exploitation, low/no empathy, excitement seeking, and conning.

And of course, we'll look at the physical, sexual, and financial harm of these emotionally lethal predators and parasites. Stay tuned. I look forward to opening your eyes about Pathological Love Relationships!

Sandra Brown

The Institute for Relational Harm Reduction &
Public Psychopathy Education
www.saferelationshipsmagazine.com