Many victims have come forward over the years confirming that domestic violence expert, Lundy Bancroft, author of “Why Does He Do That: Inside The Minds of Angry and Controlling Men”, has abused and exploited multiple domestic violence victims who attended his retreats. (See links at the bottom.)
How many of us have heard people say things like this in reference to a perpetrator of abuse? Do perpetrators really have Narcissistic Personality Disorder, or is this a term that has been overused and misused?
According to the DSM 5 [1], Personality Disorders are biological, and the behaviors are “enduring”, “stable over time”, and “pervasive and inflexible” . The DSM 5 states :
“The pattern in personality disorders is maladaptive and relatively inflexible, which leads to disabilities in social, occupational, or other important pursuits, as individuals are unable to modify their thinking or behavior, even in the face of evidence that their approach is not working. “
(**Note “unable to modify their thinking or behavior”. This further attributes to the DSM’s claim that personality disorders are not choices, they are a part of who the person is)
Having NPD means the person can't help it. Therapist Randy Withers LCMHC states :
"While people with Narcissistic Personality Disorder are capable of some truly terrible behaviors, they are nonetheless people who suffer from a mental illness that is largely beyond their control.
Those with a different point of view might take issue with what I have just said. NPD is a personality disorder, they would say. That’s totally different than a mental disorder like depression.
But they’d be wrong. The American Psychiatric Association classifies personality disorders as a type of mental disorder. The Mayo Clinic notes this as well, and research published in the British Journal of Psychiatry notes that their distinction is arbitrary."
If a perpetrator was truly a narcissist, you would see the disorder in all aspects of their life. Ie. Interaction with boss, coworkers, parents, wife, pastor, friends, strangers, etc. But as many victims of abuse have experienced, abusers are generally just abusive to their partners and/or kids, but can put on a happy smile and act like a saint whenever they want to, when they want to impress someone, or when it’s important to them. This shows evidence their harmful behavior and mistreatment is a CHOICE, not a biological dysfunction and disorder they “can’t help”.
I wanted to expound more on the history of the blaming label "Trauma Bonding" (to read why Trauma Bonding is victim blaming, and what the creator, Patrick Carnes, says about it, click HERE ).
Dutton & Painter first mentioned a process called "traumatic bonding" back in the 80's, and Patrick Carnes took it and popularized it into an actual label called "Trauma Bonding". Dutton & Painter were influenced by other researchers like Porter, Walker, Ferenczi, and especially Bruno Bettelheim (I went down a long rabbit hole of reading 😳).
Ever wonder WHY watching pornography without consent of your partner is also cheating? It's because there's a part of the brain that cannot tell the difference between what's real or what's imagined. This is why we can laugh, cry, flinch etc. during movies or imagining something.
When a person is watching porn, reading porn, or masturbating to lust/fantasy in their head, the brain is literally chemically bonding to ANOTHER person. Whether a sex addict abuser is cheating with someone in real life or with the person their brain thinks is real, it's all chemically REAL to the brain. The only difference is the threat of STI's, pregnancy, etc.
This is why sex addict abusers don't even technically need porn after a while, they can just imagine the porn (lust/fantasy). Sex addiction is one of the only addictions that someone can get high from just the lust/fantasy in their head. I sure could never get drunk from alcohol only by thinking of it.
Here's how I personally find a safe therapist:
- Go to PsychologyToday website and input your zip code.
- Then narrow down the search by clicking on "Issues" and selecting the options Domestic Abuse and Sexual Abuse. ***Do NOT select Addiction or Sexual Addiction!! You don't need an addiction therapist, you need a therapist who understands abuse and abusers. Plus, most sex addiction therapists are victim blaming and abuser coddling. If a therapist TRULY understands DV/IPV, abusers choices, victims' resistance, etc., then everything sex addiction /betrayal trauma related should be automatic common sense)
FYI: The CSAT training is FULL OF CODEPENDENCY/victim blaming. Stefanie Carnes runs the CSAT trainings (her father Patrick Carnes made up the CSAT label and lets her run it. The same Patrick Carnes that also said parents are sexually attracted to their children 🤮 See screenshot at the bottom) and she teaches future CSATs information about betrayal trauma out of her "Facing Heartbreak" book which has a ton of victim blaming in it.
This means that therapists are being told in their CSAT training they are learning "betrayal trauma", when in fact they are learning a hybrid of victim blaming models and betrayal trauma, and they likely don't even know it.... after all, the Carnes are the "experts" in the sex addiction industry, what reason do they have to question what they are taught? (Examples of victim blaming models : Codependency, Trauma Bonding, Stockholm Syndrome, Reactive Abuse, Learned Helplessness, Prodependency, telling victims they are acting like a victim, in victim mode, or in victim mentality, etc).
Stefanie Carnes and the CSAT community still have a lot to learn about trauma & abuse. No good therapist would ever say such horrible blaming things below to a woman who has been raped, so why would they say it to a betrayed wife who's being abused?
Are all CSATs uneducated? No. But most are, and it's important to remember that the CSAT label doesn't automatically mean a therapist is good. If someone found a good CSAT therapist then I promise it had nothing to do with their weekend long CSAT training 💗.
(Update, the CSAT training as of 2024 is around 140 hours long, it's no longer 2 weekends long.)
"94.2 % [men] had viewed pornography in the last six months.
Additionally, 82.4% indicated that they currently were regular users of pornography, or had been at some point. Median response for frequency of use over the last six months was 3–4 times per week. Median response for average session length was 15–30 minutes."
*** "religious participants did not report using pornography any more or less frequently than their non-religious counterparts."
PR
"Victim mode",
"Victim Mentality",
"Victim Mindset"
"Stop playing a Victim",
"It's tempting to be the victim"- Leslie Vernick, author of The Emotionally Destructive Marriage,
"Be a survivor, not a victim",
"You're a victim, but you don't have to live there. You have a choice",
"Victim thinking is actually self centered" - Vicki Tidwell Palmer CSAT, Moving Beyond Betrayal
"You are only a victim for a nanosecond" - Pia Mellody via Vicki Tidwell Palmer CSAT, Moving Beyond Betrayal
"Where there is choice... it is impossible to be a victim." - Vicki Tidwell Palmer CSAT, Moving Beyond Betrayal
"After the actual event of being victimized, you are no longer a victim in the present moment" - Vicki Tidwell Palmer CSAT, Moving Beyond Betrayal
These phrases and beliefs should NEVER be used with actual victims. I'm tired of the word "victim" being wrongly used as a weapon or way to control/silence victims under the guise of "empowerment". Can you imagine someone saying these things to a victim who just lost their entire home to a natural disaster? : "Stop playing the victim, get out of your victimhood. It's not presently happening to you anymore, you're no longer a victim of natural disaster. Stop being self centered. You have a choice"?? That would be incredibly insensitive and outright mean.
Contrary to popular belief, being an actual victim is not a feeling, a mood, or state of mind. There's no connotation of weakness in the dictionary definition of "victim". See?:
Victim Definition: "to be hurt, damaged, or killed because of something or someone; a person who is cheated or fooled by someone else"
"Victim" is simply a word that describes that something bad happened to us that wasn't our fault. That's all. Ie. Victim of a car crash, victim of assault, victim of natural disaster, etc. It's not who we are. When we talk about the word "victim" as if it's a negative label, feeling, mood, or state of mind, we are only fueling the belief that there is something wrong with the word "victim". Why WOULDN'T we want a word that means what happened to us wasn't our fault? That's a good thing!
"I use the terms victim and perpetrator..they're situated actions terms, they're not identity terms..I know a lot of people prefer survivor and that's cool, but the word victim at least denotes that a crime has been committed against you. The word survivor does not. So there's something in the word victim that is important."
"The word victim contains a criminal act." - Dr Allan Wade, Centre For Response Based Practice
But, can these phrases be used accurately in any context? Yes, these phrases are commonly and accurately used to describe a perpetrator who is pretending to be a victim of the person they victimized. For example, by definition "victim mentality" means that someone who is not a current victim is playing a victim :
Victim Mentality : "an acquired personality trait in which a person tends to recognize or consider themselves as a victim of the negative actions of others, and to behave as if this were the case in the face of contrary evidence of such circumstances."
However, again, phrases like this should never be used on someone who is actually a victim. Only people/perpetrators who are pretending to be a victim. For anyone to tell an actual current victim that they are in "victim mode", "victim mentality", etc. is LITERALLY TELLING THEM THEY AREN'T A VICTIM AND ARE JUST ACTING LIKE IT!
By acknowledging that I'm a victim, I'm acknowledging that I'm injured and it's not my fault. Again, this is good. But to imply I'm only "playing" a victim, it insinuates that I have fault in my injury, or am not that injured and am just being dramatic. Which is disgusting, incorrect, and wrong.
We already know research shows that most women in prostitution are trafficked, but how many women in pornography are trafficked? Based on these statistics it looks to be roughly at least 54-68%. Hopefully these statistics can shed more light. Sadly, many women don't know they are trafficked, and some are even groomed and brainwashed into believing they chose it, so it's incredibly hard to find statistics on something you can't always directly ask the victim about. There's no way to know if every woman in porn is consenting or forced to say they consented. Even IF it were something smaller, like say 10% of the women in porn who are trafficked, since the average amount of clicks per person on just a single porn site is 11 clicks, then that would mean every person would be viewing at least 1 woman's rape. That's still way too many. But 54-68%? 😭 WATCHING FUELS THE DEMAND OF THEIR ABUSE.
First, in order to understand how the statistics apply we must first understand the definition of trafficking and all it entails :
Everyone PLEASE read this. You may think you know what rape and sexual assault means, but the reality is the majority of people in this world don't fully understand what it is. Sex is only supposed to be between any consenting adults who WANT to have sex, and feel SAFE enough to have sex. That's it. If either of those aren't on the table, then sex shouldn't happen.
First let's have a refresher on what consent is in order to understand what sexual violence entails. The definition of consent often gets misunderstood because people assume that if you go along with something without a fight, or don't say the word "no", then it's consent, which isn't true. I used to think rape was a person forcing themselves on another person while they were kicking and screaming and saying no, but it's much more than that.
I can't count the many times I've heard women say "I ignored the red flags", or "I painted the red flags green", or have heard the question "Why do abused women ignore the red flags in the beginning?". Maybe some women really do ignore red flags, I'm not implying it's not possible. But do the majority of us actually ignore red flags? Is that why a woman ended up with an abuser!?
I don't believe so, because many times there really AREN'T red flags. We may look back and think they look like red flags, but were they actual red flags at the time? Let's take a look at what it means to "ignore a red flag" :
Ignore -
"to intentionally not listen or give attention to; refuse to take notice of or acknowledge; disregard intentionallyn; pretend not to notice someone or something; refrain from noticing or recognizing"
Pretend -
to claim, represent, or assert falsely; to make believe
Red Flag -
Warning of danger; warning or indicator, suggesting that there is a potential problem or threat; something that indicates or draws attention to a problem, danger, or irregularity
Who here wants a new name for codependency? Oh right, no one. "Prodependency" is another victim blaming term, made up by sex addiction therapist Dr. Robert Weiss. Besides all the other issues I have with Rob Weiss (like the fact that 1. He believes porn is healthy for some people and publicly mocked Gail Dines and anti porn activists, and called them "Henny Penny" for being TOO anti porn🙄., & 2. He works with a therapist named Kim Buck who once cuddled with her PATIENT., & 3. He knowingly and proudly employs a registered child sex offender named Scott Brassart. Brassart is also pro pornography, he admitted he still watches pornography, and he runs sex addiction 101 groups for sex ADDICTS!!!!), the problem with Prodependency is that it's basically the same as codependency, minus a few beliefs, and then stealthily rebranded in a shiny new package. Let's break down 1 book, 8 videos, more articles and research papers than I could count, all in just one post.
What does Rob Weiss say that prodependency IS? :
The term "Trauma Bond" is just as victim blaming as codependency, reactive abuse, stockholm syndrome, learned helplessness, Drama Triangle, etc, and just as dangerous for abuse victims. To be clear, I'm not referring to the bond that happens between two victims sharing their trauma together, ex. bonding after natural disasters, victims in support groups, etc. That definitely happens and is a good thing. I've met the best of friends through the journey of healing trauma from abuse. I'm officially referring to the term "Trauma Bond"
"Trauma bonding" was coined by Dr Patrick Carnes, (The same guy who states parents are naturally sexually attracted to their own children 🤯😳🤮 To learn more, go HERE ), and promoted by his daughter Stefanie Carnes who has taken over his empire. According to Carnes, "Trauma Bonding" essentially means that :
1. Victims don't leave abusive relationships because victims are compulsively SEEKING to be abused.
2. Victims are addicted to trauma.
3. Victims are addicted to being abused and are also abusers themselves.
4. Victims are just as messed up as the abuser.
5. Victims are "Codependent"
6. Victims end up being abused because they are just acting out past childhood traumas.
7. Victims are in the Drama Triangle (The Drama Triangle means someone isn't really a victim and is only pretending to be a victim.)
Etc.
Basically the label "trauma bonding" believes there is something inherently wrong with the victim, and THAT'S why they were abused. Not because of the perpetrators/abusers choice to abuse and injure the victim, but because the victim has underlying issues that "led" them to be abused and become "trauma bonded". These are not only false uneducated narratives, but there's zero evidence that victims get addicted to trauma OR abusers. The fact is, perpetrators abuse because they CHOOSE to abuse, and the responsibility solely relies on them.
Carnes was influenced by the writings of people who were influenced by Bruno Bettelheim. But get this, Bettelheim turned out to be a complete fraud🤯 (To read more about Bettelheim go HERE). He was never a psychologist. He was just a Freud wanna-be who lied about his credentials and education, and ended up molesting hundreds of women and children put into his care at both the college he was a director at, and the hospital he ran for autistic children. And tons of professionals to this day (like Bessel Van Der Kolk, who's victim blaming and has been accused of abuse) STILL cite Bettelheim's "scholarly" whackadoodle papers. 🤦♀️
Sadly the label "Trauma bond" has become extremely popular, yet most people and professionals either don't have a clue about the patriarchal/misogynistic victim blaming foundation it was created in, or, they fully agree with it.
Here are a few quotes that further show why it's victim blaming :
I'm not against everything regarding learned helplessness. Martin Seligman's study is fascinating (disgusting), though I don't feel it is entirely accurate. I'm also not against the idea of victims feeling helpless; this is a normal human emotion. I am against the term "Learned Helplessness" being applied to abused/betrayed victims. That is victim-blaming. Let me explain the history:
Learned Helplessness is a term coined by psychologist Martin Seligman in 1967. He wanted to understand depression. In his study, he took dogs, put them in Pavlov slings, and attached electrodes to their hind legs (see pictures below). The electrodes delivered an inescapable and uncontrollable shock to half of the dogs he referred to as the "yoked group". He then took the yoked group of dogs and put them in a shuttle box with an electrified floor and a half wall in the middle and continued shocking them in hopes that the yoked group would jump over the half wall to escape, which would end the shock. Instead, 60% of the yoked dogs whimpered and yelped and eventually just laid down during the remaining 60 seconds of the shock. He concluded that the reason the yoked dogs didn't jump over the half wall to escape was because they had literally learned helplessness. (Though, Seligman did mention that at the end of a shock session, if the door to the opposite shuttle box was opened, the dog "will often come bounding across to escape from the box altogether", Seligman 1967.
Why Seligman didn't consider that as evidence yoked dogs DO escape, I do not know. That sounds like an escape to me. 🤷
Yet there are hundreds of cited research studies, articles, movies, and theories about abuse victims founded from it, and they are all based on something that isn't even real. 😲
The Drama Triangle is another victim blaming term when applied to trauma victims.
According to the creator, Dr. Stephen Karpman, the Drama Triangle is basically when two unhealthy people come together and take turns playing the roles of the Victim "woe is me", Persecutor "the bully", & Rescuer "Let me fix you", because they have psychological unmet needs, often developed in childhood. The Victim in this model is thought to be the start or catalyst of the Drama Triangle by seeking out a Persecutor who will keep them playing the Victim, and also a Rescuer who will "save" them. All three roles thrive off the drama and can get a sense of excitement from control and having felt they "won".
However, involvement in a drama triangle isn't something someone is doing to you. It's something you are equally doing WITH another unhealthy person. If you are currently the victim in a abusive/betrayed relationship you cannot be in the Drama Triangle, because the "Victim" role in the Drama Triangle isn't actually a real victim, it's someone ACTING like a victim, ie "playing the victim," as Dr. Stephan Karpman stated:
"Reactive Abuse" or "Mutual Abuse" isnt a real thing. Someone always has more power and control. The reason victims do things is completely different than why perpetrators do things. By saying the victim and the perpetrator are BOTH abusers, it's not only inaccurate, it's incredibly victim blaming and not helpful for the victim OR the perpetrator. Plus, we already have a correct name for this situation, it's called self defense. Why would we ever call something abuse when it isn't abuse?
Think of it this way, if someone broke into your house and held you down and tried to kill you with a knife, and in your terrified state you managed to break free enough to grab a bat from under your bed and hit the attacker in the head, and that blow to the head lead to the attacker dying....... would we call YOU a murderer?
I will be doing a series of posts about some victim blaming terms that many people may not be aware of that are harming victims of abuse, like Codependency, Prodependency, Trauma Bonded, Stockholm Syndrome, Reactive/Mutual Abuse, Drama Triangle, Learned Helplessness, etc <-- all terms made up by men and applied to women they thought were crazy, much like Hysteria (Which sadly still exists in the DSM, they just call it Histrionic now 😳). This post will be about Codependency.
Codependency was a word made up by abusive cheating addicts from Alcoholics Anonymous, founded in 1935, and was then used by Al-Anon (Sister of AA) when it was formed in 1951. The word later became widely popular by therapists and also authors like Melody Beattie in the 1980's. Addicts basically believed their loved ones were acting just as crazy as an addict by displaying similar behaviors (what THEY considered to be neurosis, controlling, neediness, paranoia, ritualizing etc.) and so they assumed their loved ones must be "addicted" to the addict/addicts addiction, therefore needing the exact same 12 steps as the addict (same wording and everything). This is why Al-Anon and S-anon and COSA etc. were created, to help treat all the obsessed dysfunctional family members of addicts --- also so they'd no longer hinder the addicts recovery which was the main goal (Read Al-Anons "To Wives" below🙄). These 12 step manuals subtly teach family members the belief that they have just as many issues and are as diseased as the addict.
Sadly, there's a huge movement out there where therapists and organizations (many of the top sex addiction organizations in the world) will remove the WORD "Codependency" and instead slap the word trauma over it, without ever getting rid of the codependency treatment or victim blaming content. So it's still victim blaming, except it's masked in the word "trauma", thus making it more confusing and harder to spot, and in my mind more dangerous. An example of this is how it was publicly stated by Stefanie Carnes that only 1-2% of CSATS still use the codependency model. Yet an ongoing poll showed 74% of betrayed wives experienced a CSAT covertly using the codependency model. There's a huge difference in what is SAID, and what actually happens.
Victims deserve better than to be continually blamed.
Anyone else sick of sex addict men coming up with labels for traumatized women?
Let's talk "Prodependency" 😊
S-anon believes you are just as sick and diseased and addicted as your sex addict abusive partner. Whenever they talk about "your illness", this is what they mean:
"Gaslight - Manipulate (someone) by psychological means into questioning their own sanity"
"We have not passed that subtle line between childhood and adulthood until we move from the passive voice to the active voice — that is, until we have stopped saying 'It got lost', and say, 'I lost it.' ” - Sydney J. Harris
"The Church’s position is that abuse cannot be tolerated in any form. Those who abuse or are cruel to their spouses, children, other family members, or anyone else violate the laws of God and man. All members, especially parents and leaders, are encouraged to be alert and diligent and do all they can to protect children and others against abuse and neglect. Members who have abused others are subject to Church discipline.
If leaders or teachers become aware of instances of abuse, they should counsel with the bishop. Instructions for the bishop are provided in Handbook 1.
Abuse is the treatment of others or self in a way that causes injury or offense. It harms the mind and the spirit and often injures the body as well. It can cause confusion, doubt, mistrust, and fear. It is a violation of the laws of society and is in total opposition to the teachings of the Savior. The Lord condemns abusive behavior in any form—physical, sexual, verbal, or emotional. Abusive behavior may lead to Church discipline.
I'll explain in a way that helped me understand them (I used to think they were hippy BS).
